The world's beaches are in trouble!
Shipbreaking takes place in poor countries, where once pretty beaches in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Turkey are turned into ship graveyards. However, old ships contain hazardous substances such as asbestos, lead paint and PCBs, which are released into the environment. The Rainbow Warrior is in India to visit the shipbreaking yards. Evedien from the Netherlands is on board....
November 21, 2003
The fall of the sparrow
Rachel Carsons book 'Silent Spring' described how pesticides affected the American countrysides - birds no longer heralded spring with their chirps. Urban centers in India have lost sparrows - I don't remember when i saw the last sparrow - maybe like the Dodo; the once common sparrow has disappeared - an invisible symbol of peoples and corporations one track mind, avarice and greed.
But on the rainbow warrior we have birds. We are in international waters (20 miles from the Indian coast) but we have two pairs of small brown birds - they look like sparrows but their beaks are slightly longer, so I am not too sure of their species. They are pretty friendly - they hop all around us as we work. We also have a butterfly and a few crickets. However, the butterfly and cricket's days are numbered as we now have a new guest - a black fly catcher.
Birds like pollutants have no boundaries. They move from place to place. Humans have always welcomed the presence of birds (well except when you are sleeping or if you are a farmer) but the presence of pollutants is unwelcome if not worrying.
Ships with or without cargo are dangerous - a ship could be termed as a pollutant. A ship has a cocktail of chemicals in it be it - the paint (TBT), the insulation (blue asbestos), the oil. Breaking these 'dirty' ship with bare hands as it is done in third world countries like Bangladesh, Turkey, Pakistan, China and India (Alang) not only affect people working in the scrap yard but also the environment.
As humans we are responsible not only for ourselves but for those species that are always affected by our economic processes. The members of the shipping industry have an obligation to clean up their ships before they sell it for scrap. Those who govern us also have an obligation to ensure that international regulations are followed. These regulations are not economic weapons but are miniscule efforts to conserve what little we have left in our environment.
The fall of the sparrow is but one example of the amount of 'power' we have in our hands. We must use this to protect ourselves from ourselves (which in turn would help other species too). Clean ship breaking - a process that would involve ship owners, governments and ship breakers coming together - is but one more attempt to try to undo the damage that we have done.
Dear Samir,
It’s good to know that you do have the 'avian' friends visiting you onboard the Rainbow Warrior. But that does not lead to or justify your coming up with a statement saying "Urban centers in India have lost sparrows" -- I don't agree. Am not commenting any further on it, at least in this open forum. It would be nice if you could drop in your email id for me to communicate this issue in detail.
Further, you have said " Ships with or without cargo are dangerous - a ship could be termed as a pollutant. A ship has a cocktail of chemicals in it be it - the paint (TBT), the insulation (blue asbestos), the oil. Breaking these 'dirty' ship with bare hands as it is done in third world countries like Bangladesh, Turkey, Pakistan, China and India (Alang) not only affect people working in the scrap yard but also the environment. "
Your above statement is true to an extent but then we are looking at the problem only from the aspect of 'ship owners' taking the responsibility of 'decontaminating / cleaning' their ships before they sell it to ship recyclers. Isn't it evident that 'ship manufacturers' and ship manufacturing process should at the very first stage take care not to produce 'toxic' ships or ‘dirty ships’? Only then does the issue of the hazards and perils of ship breaking come in.
Yet again, isn't it striking that even as you say that a ship can be termed as a 'pollutant' you yourself are on one of the ships crusading against 'toxic' ships. Are there ships that are less polluting (less toxic) and more polluting (more toxic) then? Do we have a model for a 'clean ship’? its attributes, its characteristics?
The onus is very much on bringing in ‘clean ship manufacturing’ technologies that at least builds a ship constituting environmentally safe materials. They should also be in the know about the disposal of such materials and its recycling procedures after the ships ‘expiry date’ is over.
Its strange, but one (especially environmentalists) realize the ‘toxic’ nature of the ship only when it is ready for dismantling. No one realized the very same ‘toxic’ nature while it (ship) was being manufactured, while it sailed on the oceans, while it docked for repairs…. during its entire life…… until….. it met its ultimate fate - ‘sent for being scrapped’….. at Alang.
So, in a way, the problem is being tackled only at the fag end of the story. It is highlighted and the issue magnified at the last moment and perhaps at the wrong place. Such issues need to be highlighted at the very beginning, preferably at the ‘ship manufacturing’ stage and at places where the ship ‘originates’. You, we and the ship recyclers are in a position to press for ‘clean’ ships and ‘clean manufacturing technologies’ even as we strive for ‘clean ship recyling’ technologies.
Hi Shriji,
You are right - the real solution lies in making clean ships in the first place. But this will not happen unless ship owners demand from the makers clean ships. Only if the owners are forced to spend money on cleaning ships before scrapping in places like Alang will there be any incentive for them to buy clean ships in the future.
This is why we focus on the problem of developed countries dumping toxic waste in developing countries. If the ships must be cleaned according to international law then shipbreaking would be safer and cleaner in Alang and new ships would be produced without materials like asbestos.
You can read about the solutions here:
http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/solutions.asp
and how Greenpeace has fitted out its newest vessel in an enviromental friendly manner:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/ships/ship-detail?ship_id=6162
"It has taken many months to refit the ship in as environmentally friendly way as possible and these improvements include: the removal or safe containment of all asbestos; fitting a special fuel system to avoid spillage; newly fitted, more efficient, diesel electric propulsion; on board recycling of waste water, leaving only clean water pumped overboard; a waste based heating system; bilge water purifiers, 15 times more effective than current legislation demands; TBT-free hull paint; ammonia based refrigeration and air-conditioning rather than climate changing and ozone depleting Freon gas - the first Dutch registered vessel to be so fitted; and an environmentally and economically efficient propulsion system to reduce CO2 emissions. "
Tom
Posted by: Tom at November 25, 2003 08:55 PMHi Tom,
Your point in putting pressure on shipowners to demand from the makers clean ships is well taken. The method that you prescribed - putting force on shipowners to spend money on ‘cleaning ships’ before being scrapped and thus justify their demand for clean ship from the makers is in a way a game of passing the buck. If that is the case, ‘the ship recycler’ is in a position to put force on the ‘ship owner’ who in turn can put force on ‘shipmakers’ for clean ships.
But then, each one here is a customer and playing the game of earning profits by keeping each other happy. Putting force is likely to make you lose your ‘customer’ and hence your profits. It is a mutual gain that you need to realize. If you can see an ‘incentive’ for the shipowner for buying clean ship then equally important is the ‘incentive’ to the ship recycler in not buying a clean ship. It’s the way that you look at things when you deal in business involving huge profits.
The question then is not forcing, coaxing, and providing incentive for the ship owner to buy clean ships. It is a simple DEMAND by concerned people with the shipmakers to provide clean ships. For this there are no incentives, no force, and no profits. Its one simple demand (not from the shipowner or shiprecyler but from the common people) to provide them with clean ships.
The weblink that you provided for solutions to safe shipbreaking: http://www.greenpeace.org/shipbreak/solutions.asp is informative. I hope Greenpeace can on the same lines provide a weblink for solutions on safe shipmaking - probably: http://www.greenpeace.org/shipmake/solutions.asp
The matter regarding how Greenpeace has fitted out its newest vessel in an environmental friendly manner is also educative. It would find more purpose and value if it were to be taken up as a case study for innovative shipmakers. Would request all ship makers to visit the site: http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/ship-detail?ship_id=6162 to enlighten themselves and make a beginning towards clean shipmaking processes.
Shriji