Janice R. Andrews
The Glen Sannox ferry, touted by the SNP as a major step in tackling climate change, is facing intense criticism for its environmental impact. Set to begin service on January 13, the dual-fuel vessel is expected to release 10,391 tonnes of CO2 every year—more than 30% higher than the 31-year-old diesel-powered Caledonian Isles, which it is replacing.
A Costly Controversy
Originally ordered in 2015 with a budget of £97 million, the Glen Sannox and its sister ferry, Glen Rosa, were supposed to be delivered in 2018. However, the project has faced significant delays and cost overruns, with the final price now escalating to £428 million. Critics argue that the decision by the Scottish Government’s ferry procurement agency, CMAL, to choose dual-fuel technology has contributed to the issues, driving up costs and causing delays.
The ferries are designed to operate on both marine gas oil (MGO diesel) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). While LNG is promoted as a cleaner alternative to diesel, a confidential CalMac study has revealed that the climate benefits of LNG are limited. In fact, LNG usage also releases unburnt methane, adding an additional 1,800 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions annually.
Unmet Climate Promises
When Nicola Sturgeon launched the Glen Sannox in 2017 as Scotland’s First Minister, she claimed it would help the country achieve its ambitious climate change goals. However, Professor Tristan Smith from University College London’s Energy Institute argued that LNG offers little advantage over diesel from a climate perspective. He even suggested that running the ferry on MGO diesel might be a more environmentally sound option.
“There’s little to no benefit to using LNG, and in some cases, it may actually make things worse,” said Smith.
Widespread Criticism
The ferry’s environmental impact and soaring costs have sparked widespread criticism. Joe Reader, chair of the Mull & Iona Ferry Committee, slammed the decision to use dual-fuel technology as “blind” and labeled the project a “very expensive mistake.”
Douglas Lumsden, the Scottish Tories’ energy spokesperson, accused the SNP of misleading the public. “The claims that the Glen Sannox would be eco-friendly are yet more spin,” he said. “In the meantime, the SNP has wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money.”
Defending the Project
In response, a CMAL spokesperson stated that it is misleading to compare the Glen Sannox’s emissions directly with older vessels, given the differences in size, power, and operational requirements. CalMac also defended the ferry, explaining that the increased passenger and vehicle traffic on the Arran route over the past 30 years required a larger, more powerful vessel.
A CalMac representative added, “The larger size and more power are necessary to meet growing demand, particularly for car transport, and the Glen Sannox will offer better resilience against adverse weather conditions.”
Growing Calls for Accountability
As the Glen Sannox prepares to begin service, the ongoing controversy over its emissions and financial mismanagement continues to intensify. Critics are demanding greater transparency and accountability from the SNP, urging them to detail plans to reduce the ferry’s emissions and justify the ballooning costs.
The Glen Sannox saga has highlighted the challenges of balancing environmental goals with operational needs, raising doubts about the true effectiveness of dual-fuel technology in helping Scotland meet its climate targets.
