Also even their language is phrased such as it says "16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars"
Note the inclusion of the word 'can' before produce. Making this statistic unreliable without further support.
Ships going from (for example) Europe to Asia switch to the cheaper sulfur bunker when exiting the EU. This could be easily fixed with international regulations so people wouldn't be able to use that misleading argument.
Respectfully sulphur is air pollution and causes significant harm.
From Wikipedia (section of Environmental impact of shipping: Conventional Pollutants)
"...Of total global air emissions, shipping accounts for 18 to 30 percent of the nitrogen oxide and 9 percent of the sulphur oxides.[15] [16] Sulfur in the air creates acid rain which damages crops and buildings. When inhaled the sulfur is known to cause respiratory problems and even increases the risk of a heart attack.[17] According to Irene Blooming, a spokeswoman for the European environmental coalition Seas at Risk, the fuel used in oil tankers and container ships is high in sulfur and cheaper to buy compared to the fuel used for domestic land use. "A ship lets out around 50 times more sulfur than a lorry per metric tonne of cargo carried."[17] Cities in the U.S. like Long Beach, Los Angeles, Houston, Galveston, and Pittsburgh see some of the heaviest shipping traffic in the nation and have left local officials desperately trying to clean up the air.[18]
Note the inclusion of the word 'can' before produce. Making this statistic unreliable without further support.