While there has been much talk around the need for the aviation industry to make changes with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, there has been less mainstream coverage of the shipping industry. Yet the global shipping industry accounts for more than one billion tons of emissions – almost three per cent of the global total – each year, a similar amount to aviation. And considering that ships transport more than 90 per cent of goods that are traded, and include everything from cargo ships and oil tankers to passenger ferries and fishing boats, it is not a huge surprise that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the UN agency that regulates shipping, revealed that greenhouse gas emissions rose by nearly 10 per cent between 2012 and 2018. Even if this emission increase was corresponding to a similar increase in the volumes of shipping, it is a trend that is going in the wrong direction at a time when all parts of society must cut emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 if we are to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degree C goal.
This is why IMO Member States (174 countries in 2021) adopted an Initial Strategy in 2018 to tackle the climate footprint from maritime transport [ADD LINK]. The strategy includes a number of goals for the shipping industry, including cutting total annual greenhouse gases by at least 50 per cent below 2008 levels by 2050. It also wants to cut the carbon intensity of emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030, and by 70 per cent by 2050 compared to 2008 levels. However, these goals are yet to be translated into binding regulations for ships and are still not taking the shipping industry to the climate neutral world that the Paris Agreement tells us we have to go.
There has been some progress: The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships and Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for existing ships entered into force on 1 January 2013. The EEDI defines energy efficiency standards for ship types by “working out the ratio of CO2 the ship emits per tonne-mile of transport work.” The SEEMP focuses on specific measures each ship needs to take to improve operational energy efficiency (such as fuel efficiency and timely maintenance). It also requires ships to collect fuel consumption and report this data to IMO.
According to John Maggs, a Senior Policy Advisor at Seas At Risk, an umbrella organisation of NGOs that focus on marine protection, progress around other areas of shipping emissions has been “painfully slow.”
“Almost nothing [has been accomplished] if you take out the reductions in emissions that happened spontaneously and without regulation as a result of the economic collapse of 2008,” he says. “Almost all the emissions reductions since 2008 have been a result of market driven ‘slow steaming’, with increased vessel sizes having an effect too.” Reducing vessels’ speed – ‘slow steaming’ – by 20 per cent would cut both emissions and fuel costs by up to 34 per cent. The practice became widespread after the 2008 economic crash, when a fall in demand led to an oversupply of ships. This is a measure that is also promoted by IMO. However due to the fact that slow steaming is a market-driven phenomenon, it is not a perfect solution. “The problem is that, at the moment, there is nothing to stop those speeds going back up as market conditions improve,” Maggs says. “It can be enforced quite easily via the satellite transponders that all commercial ships have fitted, and via port-State control.”
Roel Hoenders, IMO’s Head of Air Pollution and Energy Efficiency, Marine Environment Division, disputes the idea that nothing has been accomplished. “IMO has been working on cutting emissions through regulatory measures that now apply directly to 97 per cent of the ships operating today and through capacity-building, including supporting developing countries to implement the measures adopted and rolling out training and guides,” he says. He also points out that while trade by sea has continued to rise in recent years – from 9.2 billion tons loaded in 2012 to 11 billion tons loaded in 2018 – the overall “carbon intensity” of international shipping has reduced by around 12 per cent on average.
Of course, different types of ships pose different problems. “At the vessel level, cruise ships are probably the worst as they have a huge energy demand associated with their hotel services,” Maggs says. “They are however responsible for only a small part of total ship emissions. The main [problematic] sectors are containers, dry bulk carriers, and tankers. Of these the [ships with the largest impact on the climate] are container ships as a result of their higher speeds.”
Alternative Fuels
One obvious way to reduce emissions is for the industry to adopt alternative fuels. This is particularly important given the industry’s use of ‘bunker fuel’ – essentially the dregs of the refining process, which not only create greenhouse gases but produce noxious gases and fine particles that can hurt both human health and the environment. “Moving to alternative low and zero carbon fuels is a complex issue, not least because the infrastructure and availability needs to be in place,” says Hoenders. “While there are some small-scale trials in place for fuel such as ammonia, hydrogen and methanol, there is no clear “winner” as such at this stage.”
Last year the IMO started requiring that all fuels used in ships contain no more than 0.5 per cent sulphur, from the previous 3.5 per cent limit. It is estimated that this will prevent 7.6 million childhood asthma cases and 150,000 premature deaths around the world each year.
While a number of shipping companies are looking at alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol, the current costs involved in producing ‘green’ hydrogen are too high to compete with fossil fuels.
Wind is an obvious renewable energy source that shipping companies could utilise – it is after all how all global shipping was once powered – but only a tiny fraction of shipping is being moved by so-called sail cargo, where ships (either existing sail ships, retrofitted engine ships or new builds) are powered entirely by the wind. Kite ships use a kite (in conjunction with a motor) to cut emissions, while the Japanese shipping company NYK is developing a ship that will utilise blades – similar to a wind turbine – which the company claims will cut emissions by 69 per cent.
For Maggs, the first priority should be on reducing fuel burn. “This can be done via more efficient ships moving at slower speeds using renewable technologies such as sails. This could reduce emissions steeply in the short term and help prepare the industry for use of the more scarce and expensive zero-carbon fuels of the future.”
Maggs is clear on what more needs to be done. “A short-term measure with real teeth is needed,” he says. “We proposed a direct regulation of speed. [The IMO] is moving towards a goal-based system with targets for individual ship carbon intensity. If this was coupled with levels of ambition compatible with 1.5 degrees, then it could do the job. More practically to meet climate and wider environmental objectives ships need to reduce their fuel burn to a minimum, via slower more efficient ships using sails and other renewable technologies on board, with the remaining fuel burn being zero-emission new fuels.”
The IMO is optimistic that the industry will reach the goals it has set. “Shipping is vital to world trade, and is an international industry in which the assets (ships) move between different jurisdictions and there are many different actors involved,” Hoenders says. “Shipping can move towards decarbonization, but this is a complex process.”
“IMO Member States are committed to moving forward with decarbonisation of the shipping industry,” says IMO’s Hoenders. “At the same time, we need to recognize the differing views of all Member States and the vital role of cost-efficient shipping services for many economies, in particular in the developing world. It is very important that everyone’s voices are heard and that we move forward in a way that leaves no one behind.”
Yet given the shipping industry’s importance to global trade – something amply illustrated by the effect of the Ever Given running aground in the Suez Canal – it is clear that additional measures that can effectively bend the emission curve downwards, both in absolute and relative numbers, are needed, and fast, if the industry is going to make real progress towards the Paris Agreement goals.