Two weeks ago a US court struck down local bunker fuel regulations put in place by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) after a lawsuit brought by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. The decision raises the broader question as to whether local or international regulations are the best way to achieve reductions in ship emissions.
Industry views so far can be seen in this poll:
http://www.sustainableshipping.com/forum/

IBIA has just reported that CARB has achieved a stay of injunction. Not sure I follow that since the original case was to prevent action while they sorted it all out and now we have a stay of that injunction effectively allowing them to do it anyway.

Anyway, the PMSA (see Sustainable Shipping Forum Edition)makes the case that the reason to oppose CARB is to try and achieve workable globally uniform legislation.

Now, I note that Singapore claims to legislate "with a light touch" and while France has been the quickest to get its national legislation in place as required for MARPOL, it is not being too strict in enforcement until it is on an equal footing with the rest of the states within the established SECAs.
Why? because fuels are for many operators the single biggest operating cost and for some it is as much as 90% of operating costs. So, if legislation is unilaterally harsh in one port the concern is that all that will happen is that shipping will divert to a less harsh/expensive environment.

It seems to me that one way to respond to aggressive unilateralism would be for the industry to make a show of diverting its activities to Baja California, to Oregon or via the soon to be expanded Panama canal, to Galveston, Corpus Christi or wherever.

This is about the only influence the shipping industry seems to have.
For shippers, goods destined to California would be more expensive but they will be anyway.

By the way, I have been paying some pretty close attention to the fuel computer in my car. I have noticed that by and large, driving at half the speed I normally do only results in me taking twice as long to use the same amount of fuel. I suspect that this is pretty typical of many ships as well where the most significant fuel savings may come from a speed reduction of a few knots, not by going to half speed. Indeed, some comment that fuel consumption can actually increase. Time to get the NERA report to the EU on Market based Mechanisms dusted off and get some decent legislation written around measureables not fantasies.

Lastly, what are the current forrest fires doing for California's emissions? or are they "carbon neutral?"

I agree with you Ralph. We also sell Omstar B-15X and R-4000 for use with marine fuels.Some organizations advocate using low sulfur distillate fuel instead of Bunker-C as the only solution. If their members used Omstar B-15X additive in the Bunker-C they might see a 5-15% increase in fuel economy while also cutting emission across the board by more than 50% between now and when Marpol Annex VI comes into force in 2010. The ship owners would save 100 of millions of Euros per year between now and 2010 and that is surely worth a discussion. Changing from Bunker-C to Distillates will dramatically increase the cost of moving goods all over the world. The world economies can ill afford this increase in cost at the moment. The cost of Distillate fuel will increase even more than it is now when Marpol Annex VI comes into effect in 2010 due to increased demand. The price of Distillate fuel is more closely related to the price of a barrel of oil compared to Bunker-C and that is not good for the oil tanker or shipping industry or their customers. We at Green Eco Tek have no stake in Bunker C fuel sales, it just make good economic sense to do what you and I are advocating while also reducing emissions. Distillate fuel has a lower BTU level compared to Bunker-C fuel. This in itself would increase emissions if more fuel has to be used to go the same speed based on the BTU value being lower for Distillates.

The current thinking regarding sulfur content in Bunker-C being related to high SOx emissions is correct unless Omstar B-15X is used in conjunction with Bunker-C. The low sulfur Distillates that Marpol VI advocates will also need Omstar B-15X if Bunker-C is eventually banned for shipping. Distillate fuels have an issue with lubricity as has been documented by companies that are using it while coming into the ports in California. Omstar additives will further reduce emissions in Distillates as well while also increasing fuel economy and reducing maintenance costs by more than 45%. I personally think the entire shipping industry needs to re-evaluate what they are doing and explore every option to reduce their fuel cost while also reducing emissions. We are also involved with Hydrogen On Demand Systems that will further reduce emissions while also increasing fuel economy. Too many people are making decisions regarding marine fuel that are not directly involved or affected with the cost or savings on the positions they are advocating. That needs to change. More shipping and oil tanker stockholders and owners need to speak up or we will see the cost of goods all over the world dramatically increase. Good Luck with your testing in the Port!