Saving Arctic from sustainable terrorism – Maritime Bulletin

Post Views:
451

Russia and Canada will not be acceding to the International Maritime Organization’s 2024 prohibition on heavy fuel oil. Canada’s move is likely only temporary until it can formally adopt the underlying agreement, while Russia aims to use heavy fuel oil for at least five more years.
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/russia-and-canada-opt-out-voluntary-heavy-fuel-oil-ban-arctic
https://mfame.guru/the-arctic-heavy-fuel-oil-ban-is-not-enforced-by-russia-and-canada/
…
Eliminating the exemptions and waivers would not afford the Arctic the same protections as the Antarctic, because cargoes would still be allowed, but it would at least protect against HFO spills and immediately lower black carbon emissions. Come the fall, let’s hope that member states reconsider the draft language and insist on an HFO ban without exemptions and without waivers. Otherwise, the so-called HFO ban will be nothing of the sort.
https://theicct.org/imos-draft-hfo-ban-is-nothing-of-the-sort/

So Arctic salvation is delayed, huh? Here’s one simple reason which might be behind Russian and Canadian unwillingness to ban everything common sense in Arctic waters. There are a number of other reasons, like you know, survival of Arctic populations, but from the point of view of eco terrorists, they’re non-essential. Here’s another one, having a direct impact on Arctic – there is no reliable and efficient fuel to replace HFO with, except nuclear. Crazy games with “sustainable zero-emission” fuels lead to a growing number of engine failures, mechanisms can’t stand idiots and their idiotic “green fuels”. Mechanisms aren’t humans, their tolerance level is much, much lower.
Ships’ engines must be reliable, especially in dangerous and treacherous waters of Arctic. Sudden failures might leave disabled ships at the mercy of Nature, like ice, winds, currents. There might not be icebreaker nearby, in time to assist troubled ship, and it all might well finish in disaster. Real full-scale disaster, with a lot of pollution and other unpleasant things.
Do eco terrorists think about it? Hardly so – they’re in eco business for other reasons, first; and second – they’re too stupid and ignorant. Splashing substances on pieces of art and coming up with most ridiculous, outrageous demands are the only things they do professionally.

P.S. How about ice-free Arctic, is this fear-mongering still in the agenda? Yes it is, though it’s delayed – again. New “computer-based forecasts” move ice-free Arctic up forward to some 20-30 or 40 years from now. What’s most infuriating in this ice-free forecast crap, is the claim that it is “much earlier than the average projection from the global climate models”! We’ve been promised ice-free Arctic how many times? Count is lost. In 90-th, by 2000, and every 5 years after that. Now, have a look at ice map as of Nov 15, and try to see there ice-free Arctic, or ice cover reduced by 90 percent, 95 percent, etc.
Industry media, maybe just for once, for a change, you publish something opposite to criminal “sustainable” agenda?