The report, overseen by a steering committee of 32 governments and published by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), found that a levy would do less damage to the global economy than a standard for cleaner fuels and, if designed right, could help reduce global economic inequality.

Marshall Islands shipping negotiator Albon Ishoda said the analysis showed that a direct levy on emissions “is the fastest, cheapest and most equitable way” to decarbonise shipping, a sector that accounts for 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas pollution.

A levy would force ship owners to pay for every tonne of greenhouse gases their vessels emit, making the use of more-polluting fuels – like today’s oil-based bunker fuel – more expensive. It would incentive the use of lower-emitting fuels like ammonia, biofuels, methanol and hydrogen.

Ishoda said he now expects to see countries coalesce around an emissions levy, adding that “alternatives such as relying solely on a fuel standard could be up to twice as damaging for global GDP by 2050, with the poorest countries hit hardest”.

IPCC’s input into key UN climate review at risk as countries clash over timeline

But written comments on the UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report show that Brazil, Argentina and China disputed its findings. Latin American nations have long led opposition to an emissions levy, fearing it will harm their trade-dependent economies.

Argentinian officials noted that they were “surprised” at the conclusion that levies would lead to less economic damage in the long term while Brazil wrote that this was “nonsensical”.

Argentina said it was “policy-prescriptive and therefore unacceptable” for the report to suggest that disbursing the revenues would help developing countries more than developed ones, while China argued this aspect should not have been factored in as “the impact assessment should focus on the impact of the measure, rather than the impact after revenue distribution”.

Levy or fuel standard?

Governments have already agreed to put a price on shipping emissions as a way to reach net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”. But they have not settled on exactly how to do that, instead tasking experts to study the impacts of various proposals.

One proposal – which most countries support – is a fuel standard that would see ship owners pay for emissions only above a certain level. Owners of ships emitting below this level could potentially sell licenses to those emitting above it, enabling them to continue polluting. This would incentivise shipowners to use cleaner fuels or to save fuel by sailing slower.

Some countries – like the Pacific island states and many European nations – want to combine this fuel standard with a levy, where ship owners would have to pay varying amounts based on their vessels’ total annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable-energy carbon credits rejected by high-integrity scheme

Under the direction of governments, experts from UNCTAD, the World Maritime University, DNV and Starcrest Consulting Group produced four separate reports, modelling dozens of different scenarios.

UNCTAD found that any emissions-cutting scenario would push up the cost of shipping, damaging the global economy by around 0.1-0.2% by 2050. It did not model the economic benefits of how the measures would help curb climate change.

Comparing a levy to a fuel standard, the UNCTAD report concluded that “in the long run (2050), scenarios that envisage a levy have a smaller impact” on economic growth.

University College of London academic Tristan Smith, who worked on the paper, explained that the levies modelled lead to greater subsidies for zero-emission fuels and higher incentives for fuel efficiency than the proposed fuel standard. He told Climate Home that this lowers the cost of the transition and therefore the damage to economic growth.

Fairer and faster?

The report found that a fuel standard without a levy would damage the economies of developing countries – particularly small islands (SIDs) and least developed countries (LDCs) – more than developed countries because any increase in shipping costs hits the poorest hardest.

A high emissions levy of $150-300 per tonne of CO2 equivalent would be fairer, it found, broadly damaging developing countries’ economies less than developed ones, assuming that the revenues were distributed to poorer nations. Such a levy would actually boost the economies of most LDCs, it found, and damage SIDs less than the alternatives.

Consultants from Starcrest interviewed representatives of governments and business in various countries and heard concerns that economies exporting cheap, bulky goods over long distances would be badly hit by an increase in the cost of shipping. It cited Tonga’s exports of the medicinal kava plant and the US’s exports of wood chips as examples.

If green measures drive ships to slow down to save fuel, then countries that rely on exporting perishable goods to faraway destinations would suffer, Starcrest was told. Argentina’s beef and Chile’s cherry industries could be vulnerable.

As first airline drops goal, are aviation’s 2030 targets achievable without carbon offsets?

University of Sao Paulo economist Paula Pereda told Climate Home that a levy would “quickly reduce emissions”, but warned against its “potential regressive impacts, which more negatively affect poorer countries and poorer families in all countries”.

While revenue redistribution could help tackle this unfairness, it could also increase emissions from the compensated households and increase the complexity of the mechanism, she added.

“Balancing environmental benefits with social equity remains a key challenge in the implementation of carbon tax policies,” she said.

Governments will debate whether to pursue a levy or fuel standard at the next set of IMO talks in London, starting on September 30. They are aiming to have a measure in place by 2027, which means they will need to agree it at talks in April 2025.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Key UN report lends weight to Pacific plan for shipping emissions levy appeared first on Climate Home News.

With rich countries failing to deliver promised amounts of their taxpayers’ money to help developing countries tackle warming, global attention has turned to so-called “innovative” sources of climate finance – like levies on ships, planes or fossil fuel firms – to make up the shortfall.

But at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the United Nations’ shipping arm, governments have made clear they want the bulk of the revenue from a shipping emissions levy to go towards making it cheaper and easier for companies to put clean fuel in their vessels.

Sitting in the 7th-floor boardroom of the IMO’s riverside London headquarters, Arsenio Dominguez, the IMO’s new head, said “we need to focus on shipping as a sector, as that is what we regulate and that’s where we need to focus the efforts”.

IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez (March 18/IMO)

Asked if the money could go into a new UN fund to repair and reduce loss and damage from climate change, Dominguez told Climate Home: “That’s another UN agency – we have no remit there.” The fund, set up under UN climate change talks, is set to be hosted by the World Bank.

While conversations are at an early stage, Dominguez’s view is broadly echoed by the shipping industry – as well as by most governments that have so far submitted formal proposals at the IMO, although Pacific nations want some of the funds to be used outside of shipping.

Loss and damage fund board member Avinash Persaud, from Barbados, urged finance and environment ministers to intervene at the IMO to secure a share of any future shipping levy for addressing the harm caused by worsening extreme weather and rising seas.

Big-emitting sector

As it moves goods around the world, the international shipping industry emits a similar amount of greenhouse gases to Germany but has lagged behind when it comes to setting targets to reduce that pollution.

In July last year, governments at the IMO agreed to aim for net zero emissions in the sector “by or around, i.e. close to 2050” – with interim targets for 2030 and 2040.

At the same time, they agreed to look into putting a price on the industry’s emissions. On Monday, Dominguez said he was confident such a levy would be agreed by this time next year, although the details are still to be fought over.

While nations are split on how high the charge should be – with a group of island nations arguing for the highest tax of $150 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions – submissions from governments, industry and campaign groups all specify that the funds should be used mainly for cleaning up shipping.

Climate protesters dressed as mermaids lie on the floor at an IMO drinks reception last year (Photo credit: Guy Reece)

Kept in house?

A joint submission from the European Union, South Korea, the International Chamber of Shipping, the Environmental Defense Fund and others says a portion of the money should go to cleaning up shipping through investments, research funding and rewards for using clean fuels. 

The money should also address “disproportionate negative impacts” of the transition to clean shipping through training, technical advice and finance for green investments, it adds. An impact assessment is currently being carried out by experts under the guidance of the IMO.

Another joint submission from eight Pacific nations and Belize says the funds should be collected and spent using the principle of “the polluter pays”. That would require the shipping industry as the polluter to stop burning planet-heating fossil fuels “whilst making reparation for the impact on the environment, including people and communities”, the submission specifies.

A shipping negotiator from the climate-threatened Marshall Islands, Albon Ishoda, said the money should be “reinvested in the shipping industry to trigger research, development and deployment into zero-emission maritime technologies and to address climate mitigation efforts”, as well as in “an equitable transition” for small islands and the world’s poorest countries.

How to hold shipping financially accountable for its climate impacts

A Pacific negotiator, who was not authorised to speak to the media, told Climate Home that this transition funding should go to projects both in and outside of the shipping sector according to “the priority needs of the climate most vulnerable”.

A Canadian proposal says each ship’s operator should decide, within certain limits, where the money it pays should go.

International climate finance sought

Loss and damage expert Persaud said shipping industry executives – and even maritime ministers – could not be expected to support a plan to spend money raised from the sector outside the industry. “It’s almost beyond their remit,” he said.

Rather, finance and environment ministers “would need to be part of the push to get the world’s most significant economic system – the trading system – to contribute to the loss and damage caused by current and past emissions in the production, consumption and transportation of goods”, he added.

Friederike Roder from Global Citizen, an anti-poverty campaign group, agreed it is “not surprising” that the IMO and the shipping sector “are trying to retain the proceeds for themselves”. But, she said, the polluter pays principle should apply more broadly to at least part of the proceeds raised from a shipping emissions levy.

Aoife O’Leary, head of shipping-focused environmental think-tank Opportunity Green, also called for some of the money to be spent on protection from climate impacts, such as projects to help flood-hit communities in Bangladesh or build sea walls on Pacific islands.

In Somalia, Green Climate Fund tests new approach for left-out communities

A global finance summit in Paris last year, attended by about 50 heads of state, came to a similar conclusion and led to the launch of a taskforce by France and Kenya to explore “innovative sources” of climate finance ahead of the Cop30 climate summit in late 2025.

Danish climate minister Dan Jorgensen, meanwhile, has called a shipping tax “a potential global source” of “international climate finance”.  

At the IMO, a working group of government shipping negotiators has been formed to hammer out how to raise and spend the money, with a decision expected by this time next year.

The post Shipping sector pushes to keep emissions-tax cash for itself appeared first on Climate Home News.

LNG is a fossil fuel whose use is not consistent with the Paris Agreement 1.5C temperature goal. It consists primarily of methane, an extremely powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), which has climate impacts over 80 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Methane leaks into the atmosphere across the full production lifecycle of LNG, and once on the ships, the unburned gas escapes from the smokestacks into the air.

Despite the devastating frontloaded climate impact of methane, to date policymakers have been slow to address its use in regulation, and public awareness of the issue is low. This gives cruise companies the latitude to invest in LNG as an alternative fuel – and they have done so with gusto.   

Why do cruise companies love LNG? 

There are some benefits to LNG on paper: in the short term it reduces air pollution and CO2 emissions when burned, compared to standard shipping fuel. This has led to some of the world’s biggest cruise companies (including Carnival Corporation & plc and MSC Cruises and Royal Caribbean Group) to portray their cruises as sustainable, and their newest ships “clean”, “green” and “eco-friendly”.

Across the industry, company webpages are littered with references to LNG superimposed on images of idyllic blue seas, thriving coral reefs, and green forests. Most of us aren’t specialists in the climate impacts of differing fuel compositions, and it’s easy to be taken in.  

But the reality is that these adverts are a very effective smokescreen for the fact that the true climate effect of LNG is likely worse than if the companies had stuck with dirty heavy marine fuel oil.  

Calling out cruise companies’ ‘green’ claims  

With recent poll data demonstrating that environmentally friendly cruise line policies mattered to 77% of respondents, and US research relating to consumer goods showing a link between products making green claims and higher sales growth, it’s clear that sustainability sells.

We don’t think it’s right that some of the biggest companies in the world should be able to profit from green claims that don’t stack up. 

That’s why at Opportunity Green we’re filing complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK about the worst advertising we’ve seen. This includes cruise companies claiming that fossil-LNG is “a breakthrough green technology”, “among the cleanest fuels in the world”, and that it is a milestone on the “journey to zero emissions operations”. 

It is not ok to mislead consumers about the real climate impact of LNG. And in the absence of effective regulation of methane emissions in the shipping sector, we want companies and their investors to see that LNG is not part of a future-proof business model.  

Instead, forward-looking companies must be investing in true zero emissions solutions such as wind propulsion, electrification and e-fuels made from renewable energy such as methanol, ammonia or hydrogen to deal with climate transition risk. 

Truly decarbonising the cruise sector won’t be easy, but these companies have the market share to make a difference – and the first mover advantage could be significant. It might even be ‘green’.  

For more information about how cruise companies are is trying to gaslight the public into believing that LNG is a climate solution, read the full report, (UN)sustainable from ship to shore.  

Carly Hicks is legal director at Opportunity Green. 

The post The cruise industry says LNG is a climate solution. It’s not appeared first on Climate Home News.

Climate Home identified ten oil and gas company lobbyists and over 50 employees of the shipping industry on the participant list of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) talks, which the media and public were barred from.

Shipping uses the dirtiest part of a barrel of oil to fuel its vessels and oil companies are likely to struggle to sell that part elsewhere if the industry moves to cleaner fuels based on green hydrogen.

Lack of transparency

Aoife O’Leary is the director of the Sasha Coalition and was among the 44-strong delegation of climate campaigners at the talks, which took place in London at the end of June.

Under record heatwave, US and China “unstick” climate talks

She said that the IMO, the UN’s shipping arm, “violates international standards on transparency in environmental decision making”.

“There are too few climate vulnerable countries participating in the room due to resource limitations while other delegations are overloaded with industry representatives,” said O’Leary.

The cost of attending several weeks of talks in London is too much for many poorer, smaller and more distant governments.

O’Leary said that there are “many interests looking not to fuels that can solve the climate crisis, but rather to expand their sales of fossil fuels by pushing gas as a ‘transition fuel’ for shipping”.

Rasmus Bjerring Larsen is a policy officer at Green Transition Denmark who was at the talks. He told Climate Home: “Industry involvement at the IMO is overwhelming, particularly from big oil and ship owners. Meanwhile civil society and especially media representation is marginal.”

Crunch talks

The week-long meeting, known as the inter-sessional working group, was the behind-closed-doors precursor to a more public week of government discussions about shipping’s climate strategy.

At stake were the questions of what net zero target to set for the industry and whether to set interim 2030 and 2040 targets and consider a tax on ships’ emissions. The shipping industry contributes 3% of global emissions – more than Japan.

Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals

At the end of the two weeks, governments agreed to target net zero “by or around, ie close to 2050” and cut emissions by 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040, compared to 2008 levels.

Lobbyists on the guestlist

Governments bring delegations to the meeting, usually made up of government staff but sometimes including corporate lobbyists or climate campaigners.

Several nations brought lobbyists from oil and gas companies based in their countries. Norway’s delegation included two advisers from Equinor, that of Canada had a regulatory affairs analyst from Irving Oil, and Indonesia brought someone from Pertamina.

The Swiss delegation featured no government employees. Its only representative was Claudio Abbate, the vice-president for government affairs of the Swiss-headquartered Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), which is investing in ships powered by fossil gas.

EU and Argentina strike gas, hydrogen & renewables deal

MSC’s biggest competitors were also there. CMA CGM was a guest of the French government, Cosco of the Chinese delegation and Maersk – the most climate-ambitious container shipping company – was part of the Danish delegation.

A host of governments, including Japan, Greece and Germany, brought representatives of their domestic shipping industry trade associations.

The Cook Islands was represented by an Englishman called Ian Finley, who has worked for a trade association representing the chemical shipping industry.

Observer groups

Other industry representatives attended as observers. Shell lobbyist Alex Revans, ExxonMobil’s Christophe Pouts and Saudi Aramco scientist Hassan Alzain were part of the delegation from the oil industry’s environmental lobby group Ipieca.

At the meeting, Ipieca argued in a written submission that the term “lower [greenhouse gas] emissions energies” should be used instead of stricter terms such as “zero-emission fuels”.

Australia will update the ‘fantasy’ net zero plan it inherited

They added that carbon offsets from outside the shipping sector should be allowed to contribute to industry’s emissions targets.

As at previous shipping talks, Brazil’s delegation included lobbyists from Brazilian mining company Vale.

Brazil was the strongest opponent of a tax on shipping emissions, labelling it a “tax on distance”. Such a tax is likely to harm the competitiveness of Vale’s metal exports to distant markets like China.

Cruise lines were represented by their CLIA association, which included chief Carnival lobbyist Anna Ziou. While container shipping companies have widely varying levels of support for the clean transition, cruise shipping companies are more consistently resistant to green fuel.

Kerry rejects “climate reparations” but praises loss and damage fund

The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents the entire industry, brought an eight-strong delegation and trade associations representing smaller niches of the industry were represented too.

Opaque talks

These talks were closed to the media and to the public. The talks the following week were partly open to the media but were not live-streamed for the public to watch like the UN climate talks are.

Even where journalists are allowed into talks, they are not allowed to name individual government speakers without their permission – a restriction that does not govern other UN talks.

With corporate climate cheats on the chopping block, net zero is growing up

Tristan Smith attended the talks for the trade association IMarEST. He told Climate Home that “sometimes it can be hard to know how industry’s preference affects outcomes”.

But, he said that the “IMO’s processes need the expertise and direct input of industry stakeholders for the design of effective policy. It would be odd to try and operate without this.”

Larsen said that “technical knowledge from industry can be valuable” but “stricter conflict-of-interest safeguards and better representation of climate vulnerable countries, marginalized groups and media are key for the IMO to drive a fair and transparent process.”

He added: “It is crucial to set clear boundaries for when and how technical contributions from industry should be made use of, and when the floor should be reserved for state representatives and civil society.”

Reponding to O’Leary’s criticism, an IMO spokesperson said that a fund had been created to support delegates from developing countries, especially small islands and least developed countries, to attend meetings. They said the fund allowed 12 people to attend the talks, half of them from Pacific islands.

The spokesperson added that the IMO had trialled hybrid participation, allowing delegates to talk to the meeting room remotely.

Larsen’s comments were added on July 20

The post Dozens of oil & industry lobbyists attended secretive shipping emissions talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

A global renewables target has been positioned as a centerpiece of the climate talks. The EU was among the first to get behind it in principle and will discuss at their Council meeting.

But there is an unexpected twist. The EU’s executive arm, the European Commission, has asked the EU’s council, which represents member states, to officially approve a negotiation mandate for a global renewables target.

‘Historic milestone’: Ecuador nears vote to keep Amazon oil on the ground

But their ambition falls short. Globally, we need to reach a yearly installment of, on average, at least 1.5 Terawatt (TW) renewable energy from 2030 onwards to be in line with the Paris Agreement. That’s clear from our own analysis and that of Climate Analytics.

 However, the EUs internal documents only suggest yearly deployment rates which lands at below 1 TW. Even the UAE Cop28 President Sultan Al Jaber has put forward more ambitious proposals.

Why is the EUs global renewable ambition even lower than what a petro state has put forward?  If the EU wants to be a renewable energy champion it needs to significantly up their game.

Why a target is crucial

Cop28 represents a pivotal moment in stopping the world warming by more than 1.5 degrees celsius through the Global Stocktake, a unique mechanism under the Paris Agreement to assess progress and to correct course.

If we are honest, we already know we are not doing enough. What matters is what comes next: Fossil fuels cause three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals

If this is the Cop to “course correct”, no outcome will be credible without a centerpiece decision to phase out all fossil fuels –  coal, oil, and gas  – while simultaneously powering up renewables.

A global renewable target is indispensable for guiding the entire energy transition. It provides governments with a benchmark for renewable deployment, informing decisions regarding planning permission, land use, grid connections, and auctions.

Additionally, the target guides governments on how to integrate renewable power effectively, considering factors like grid investments, flexibility, storage requirements, and market design changes.

In the coming decade, much of the newly added renewable electricity capacity will meet the growing electricity demand rather than replacing coal and gas generation.

What a target must entail

Science provides a clear framework for action. By 2050, we must completely eliminate fossil fuels to stay within the 1.5-degree carbon budget. This necessitates a rapid phase-out this decade, resulting in a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.

Formulating a renewable energy target might be more complex. But its crucial and we must get it right.

The International Energy Association’s (IEA) scenarios provide a useful starting point. For achieving a 1.5C-aligned renewable energy deployment, the IEA predicts a peak installation of 1.2TW per year in the 2030s.

UAE’s al Jaber says Cop28 will fast-track phase down of fossil fuels

But this scenario has two significant flaws. First, the 1.2TW scenario assumes unrealistic utilisation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the energy sector.

CCS has long been a deceptive tool of the fossil fuel industry, with limited emissions-cutting potential and exorbitant costs.

A recent Climate Analytics study estimates the emission-cutting contribution of CCS to be 0.1% by 2030. It is only viable in hard-to-abate sectors such as steel production, not energy.

Secondly, the IEA scenario envisions an unsustainable and unattainable growth of biomass. By excluding unrealistic amounts of biomass and CCS, a more realistic estimate for renewable deployment in the 2030s is 1.5 Terawatt.

In fact, the above highlighted Climate Analytics analysis also lands at this number. So there is a real question why the EU is locking itself into a low ambition Renewable Energy goal.

The target’s politics

Those who disguise cynicism for realpolitiks may  say 1.5TW is aiming too high and a global fossil fuel phase out is politically not possible. But both are not only necessary, they are feasible.

This year, the world will add a record 0.44TW of new renewable capacity –  double what the IEA expected for 2020. This represents a jump in renewable installment of about a third compared to last year.

Taking 0.440TW as the 2023 base, we don’t even need yearly growth of a third – a quarter is enough to exceed the 1.6 TW by 2029.

The UK’s retreat from climate leadership is not in its national interest

The EU falls short of what is needed and what we can achieve – but how does it to compare to the position of the UAE?

Al Jaber said: “We must triple renewable energy capacity over the next seven years”. That carries multiple interpretations.

But the most straightforward is this: Global renewable electricity capacity needs to triple from the end of 2023 to 12.2 TW by 2030.

This entails adding an average of 1.2 TW of renewable capacity each year from 2024 to 2030.

Not a linear trajectory

But the growth of renewable energy capacity will not follow a linear trajectory.

Instead, we anticipate accelerating installation rates that would likely propel us well beyond the 1.5TW mark by 2030.

The crucial aspect of Al Jabers statement lies in the phrase “next seven years,”. At the same time, the oil CEO and Cop28 president Al Jaber might cynically push ambition on renewables to not have to reach a decision to phase out fossil fuels.

Identifying loss and damage is tough – we need a pragmatic but science-based approach

At Cop27, a handful of countries  – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia –  opposed language to phase out all fossil fuels, and so far Al Jaber is positioned to hide behind the same few blockers with vested interests.

At the climate talks in Bonn he infamously stated the phase down of fossil fuels is “inevitable”. The next few weeks will test if the UAE is actually serious about phasing out fossil fuels and powering up renewables.

If the UAE is serious about the energy transition, they will announce a ministerial pair on energy transition as usual for sticky issues in the COP process – to elevate discussions on fossil fuels and renewable energy and unlock progress.

If we win this crucial battle at Cop28, it will not be thanks to a low ambition-EU and the fossil-UAE, but thanks to renewable champions in the Global South like Kenya, Colombia, the Climate Vulnerable Forum and the Pacific islands.

Andreas Sieber is the Associate Director of Policy at 350.org and Nicolo Wojewoda is the Director of 350.org Europe.

The post The EU lacks ambition on Cop28 renewable targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

As the chair of this week’s International Maritime Organisation talks asked negotiators to rise in applause, they signed off on targets to cut emissions 20% by 2030, 70% by 2040 and 100% “by or around, ie close to 2050”.

For an industry with the same volume of emissions as Germany, it’s much better than the status quo. Before today there were no 2030 and 2040 targets and a goal to just halve emissions by 2050.

But is it good enough? No one could argue it’s compatible with 1.5C but negotiators from the US and the Marshall Islands claimed it kept that temperature limit “within reach”. For Stretch Armstrong maybe.

And what about that much-hyped tax on shipping emissions? World leaders discussed it in Paris two weeks ago, Latin American nations railed against it on Monday but it barely got a mention today.

Governments quietly agreed to study it with a view to implementing it by 2027. But what level it will be set at and what it will be spent on are the next issues to be fought over.

Convincing shipping negotiators to spend it on anything other than cleaning up the sector and compensating for the measure’s economic impacts will be a tough sell.

So any wealthy nation hoping it will absolve them of the need to pay into a loss and damage fund are likely to be disappointed.

This week’s news:

• UAE’s al Jaber says Cop28 will fast-track phase down of fossil fuels
• Developing nations decry risk of UK breaking climate finance pledge
• Threat of EU carbon tax prompts dubious “green aluminium” claims in Mozambique

…from shipping talks

• Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals
• Governments set to fail to plot shipping industry course for 1.5C
• Shipping set to boost climate targets

…and comment

• The UK’s retreat from climate leadership is not in its national interest
• Identifying loss and damage is tough – we need a pragmatic but science-based approach

If you stand on the balcony of the IMO’s fourth-floor canteen, you can see across the Thames to the parliament in Westminster – with its Big Ben and riverside beer-drinking tents.

That’s where environment minister Zac Goldsmith drafted his resignation letter last Friday and where the fall-out from that has played out this week.

Goldsmith, who was close to former prime minister Boris Johnson, accused new prime minister Rishi Sunak of “apathy” on climate change, partying with Rupert Murdoch instead of discussing global financial reform with Mia Mottley and abandoning the UK’s flagship climate finance pledge.

The doubt cast on that pledge has worried developing countries. An African negotiator told us it was “disappointing” while Senegal’s Madeleine Diouf Sarr said it echoed the failed $100 billion pledge.

Former Cop26 speechwriter Alex Urwin writes that it’s not just bad for the developing world but for the UK too.

This article originally stated in the first sentence that Bhutan set the world’s first net zero target in 2015. This was based on a claim by the World Resources Institute. But a 2015 study says that New Zealand was the first country to set a carbon neutral target in 2007.

The post Shipping catches up – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

After two weeks of negotiations which Kiribati’s negotiator described as “challenging and distressing” for everyone, negotiators at the headquarters of the United Nations shipping arm rose to applaud the agreement of the shipping industry’s new climate strategy today.

At the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), they agreed that the sector will aim to cut emissions 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and reach net zero “by or around, ie close to 2050”.

The targets are less ambitious than those that international bodies including the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) consider compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

While not legally binding, the agreement sends a signal to the industry on the direction of travel. Future work is planned to set out concrete measures that aim to reduce emissions, for example by introducing more climate-friendly fuel standards.

In the final evening of the talks, the Pacific island nations managed to include provisions for the sector to "striv[e]" for a 30% reduction by 2030 and an 80% cut by 2040. It was a last-minute victory that allowed them to claim that the global temperature limit of 1.5C was kept "in reach".

Despite resistance, the meeting agreed to look into a tax on shipping emissions - although how much the tax should be and how the money should be spent will be fought over at future meetings.

Chasm bridged

The meeting was marked by divisions between Pacific islands and developed countries that wanted more ambition and big emerging economies, especially in South America, that expressed concern about making shipping more expensive and damaging global trade and their economies.

In final comments, after the deal was agreed, Tuvalu's negotiator said he was “very disappointed with a strategy which falls short of what we needed".

The Marshall Islands negotiator said he had "mixed feelings" and there was "much work to do to make sure 1.5 remains not just within reach but a reality”.

Constructive talks

On the other hand, India's negotiator said he remained concerned about "unrealistic targets” while the USA said the targets were "ambitious but also feasible”.

Governments on both sides of the debate repeatedly praised the constructive nature of talks. Brazil thanked "friends in the Pacific islands", while Tuvalu gave "thanks to Latin America and developing countries of the global south for the spirit of compromise”.

Threat of EU carbon tax prompts dubious “green aluminium” claims in Mozambique

But Vanuatu's negotiator complained that small groups of states had hashed out deals in closed rooms.

As it was his first IMO meeting, he said "it strikes me that there needs to be better transparency and open decision-making".

https://twitter.com/RRegenvanu/status/1677012808632786953

The IMO rules ban journalists from reporting negotiators' names without their permission.

Playing catch up

As they transport goods around the world, ships burn huge amounts of polluting fuel. This contributes around 3% of the world's total emissions, more than major nations like Germany.

But, like plane travel, international shipping is not included in countries' climate plans, so they gather at the United Nations shipping arm, the IMO, in London to set the rules.

UAE’s al Jaber says Cop28 will fast-track phase down of fossil fuels

Most big emitters already have net zero targets and the body governing international plane travel set an "aspirational" net zero by 2050 goal last year.

But, before negotiators gathered in London, the shipping sector only had a target, set in 2018, to cut emissions in half on 2008 levels by 2050. The sector had no targets for 2030 or 2040.

Road to net zero

Since that target was set in 2018, momentum has grown towards setting a net zero goal. Big developing countries like Nigeria, Chile and Vietnam had joined developed countries and climate vulnerable Pacific islands in calling for such an outcome.

After a week of behind closed door talks in London, the chair produced a draft agreement this Monday which included a goal to reach net zero "by 2050 at the latest" or "by or around 2050".

In an open meeting on Monday, the “2050 at the latest” goal was supported mainly by Pacific islands and developed countries.

On the other hand, several big developing countries like China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia called for the weaker “around 2050”.

Saudi Arabia’s representative called for a “flexible and adaptable approach” while China’s said that shipping enabled economic growth which gave the world more money to spend battling climate change.

Delegates attending the opening session of the IMO meeting in London. Photo: International Maritime Organization

After two days of talks in a large IMO meeting room that was closed to the press, the chair produced a new draft which compromised on "by or around, ie close to 2050".

The US negotiator said this was a "clear signal to all stakeholders that we need to take decisive action".

As ships usually last for decades, some being built now will still be in use around 2050.

Indicative checkpoints

As the prospect of a 2050 net zero goal increased over the last few years, campaigners and some governments turned their focus to more immediate targets.

The industry's emissions are currently rising and are predicted to keep doing so until 2050, unless shipping changes.

Pacific islands, the US and the UK went to London calling for cuts of 36% by 2030 and 96% by 2040, which stem from what the SBTi judged compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

Six main proposals for new shipping GHG targets on deck @IMOHQ this week... China leading charge against as apparently tougher targets in line with 1.5C would undermine UN #climate talks. Work that one out. pic.twitter.com/2D7fcCbLyd

— Ed King (@edking_I) July 2, 2023

The European Union called for slightly less ambitious figures of 29% and 83% while sources involved in last week’s closed talks, said some countries like China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia didn’t want 2030 or 2040 targets at all.

China’s negotiator argued in open talks on Monday that the targets should be “practical, reasonable and feasible” and their impact should be assessed. He described trade and development, as well as climate, as “existential” issues.

Developing nations decry risk of UK breaking climate finance pledge

A draft strategy on Monday included targets of 20% and 70% and, despite a lobbying campaign from Pacific islands, these remained unchanged throughout the week's talks.

But Pacific islands did win a last-minute improvement in an additional goal on what to "striv[e]" for. Monday and Thursday's draft strategies included goals of 25% by 2030 and 75% by 2040.

Quoting Confucius

After talks on Thursday evening though, these were upped to 30% and 80% respectively. The Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda told journalists "these higher targets are the result of relentless, unceasing lobbying by ambitious Pacific islands, against the odds."

After the deal was struck, Malaysia’s negotiator quoted the Chinese philosopher Confucius: “It does not matter how slowly you go, as long as you don’t stop”.

But Vanuatu’s negotiator expressed more urgency. He said that, as the smashing of global temperature records recently showed, “none of us have time”.

The post Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals appeared first on Climate Home News.

With just over a day of negotiations left at the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO), the latest draft strategy does not significantly improve on targets that were branded “not ambitious enough” and “devastating” when they were first proposed on Monday.

Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu told Climate Home at the time that he and counterparts from other Pacific island nations were “going to fight” to improve targets to reduce emissions on 2008 levels by 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040.

“That’s what we’re here for, we’re here to lobby”, he said, hours after the talks’ chair drew up the roadmap after listening to governments debate the strategy behind-closed-doors the week before.

No improvement

But a new draft strategy was released this morning which did not substantially improve on those goals. The only increase in ambition was that additional targets to “striv[e]” for 25% by 2030 and 75% by 2040 were made a more definite part of the draft strategy.

The document has yet to be made public so negotiators and campaigners have not commented. But the 2030 and 2040 targets were slammed on Monday with Australia’s negotiator labelling them “not ambitious enough”.

Shipping contributes to around 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Identifying loss and damage is tough – we need a pragmatic but science-based approach

The Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda told journalists that “the science already told us” that “anything less than 36% by 2030 and 96% by 2040 will be detrimental” to limiting global warming to 1.5C and that will “have a devastating impact”.

The targets Ishoda called for have also been supported by the USA and UK and stem from what the Science-Based Targets Initiative judged compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

Six main proposals for new shipping GHG targets on deck @IMOHQ this week… China leading charge against as apparently tougher targets in line with 1.5C would undermine UN #climate talks. Work that one out. pic.twitter.com/2D7fcCbLyd

— Ed King (@edking_I) July 2, 2023

The European Union called for slightly less ambitious figures of 29% and 83% while sources involved in last week’s closed talks, said some countries like China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia didn’t want 2030 or 2040 targets at all.

China’s negotiator argued in open talks on Monday that the targets should be “practical, reasonable and feasible” and their impact should be assessed. He described trade and development, as well as climate, as “existential” issues.

Close to 2050

A debate over whether to target net zero “by” or “by or around” 2050 is set to be resolved with a compromise leaning more towards the weaker option. The new draft proposes targeting net zero “by or around, ie close to 2050, taking into account different national circumstances”.

In their speeches to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) talks this week, the “2050 at the latest” goal was supported mainly by Pacific islands and developed countries.

Developing nations decry risk of UK breaking climate finance pledge

The UK’s negotiator said 2050 should be “the absolute latest” and that the targets should be “in terms that can not be misunderstood”.

On the other hand, several big developing countries like China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia called for the weaker “around 2050” target and the inclusion of language about “different national circumstances”.

The draft deal contains a target to get “zero or near-zero” fuel sources to represent at least 5% of the energy used by international shipping by 2030, while pledging to “striv[e]” for 10%.

Shipping is currently powered almost completely by fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “low-carbon fuels” represent near to 0% of shipping fuel.

A controversial proposal to put a tax on ships’ emissions is included in the draft document, although that would just mean it is considered in the coming years.

Not a done deal

Although the document is understood to have been agreed by major economies like the US, EU and China, it is not a done deal yet.

Any country can call for a vote on any aspect of the agreement and change it with the support of more than half of the nations.

In the IMO, governments are often unwilling to do this. But Vanuatu’s Regenvanu said on Monday that he and others would think about calling a vote if a “minority group of countries” were going to stop a “high ambition outcome” against the will of an “overwhelming majority, and I mean like two-thirds”.

The document will be debated in talks, which are closed to the media, on Thursday afternoon.  It will then be discussed publicly by governments on Friday when talks are set to end.

The post Governments set to fail to plot shipping industry course for 1.5C appeared first on Climate Home News.

After a week of behind closed door negotiations, the talks chair put together a draft strategy on Monday which includes improved emissions cut targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050.

The strategy aims for the sector to reach net zero either “by” or “around” 2050 and targets emissions cuts on 2008 levels of 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040.

Threat of EU carbon tax prompts dubious “green aluminium” claims in Mozambique

The document has yet to be approved, is subject to change and is less ambitious than some governments and environmental groups are calling for – but it’s a clear step up in ambition from the sector’s current goals.

Net zero in sight

In 2018, governments’ shipping negotiators agreed to cut emissions in half on 2008 levels by 2050 – despite concerns that the target was too ambitious from nations like Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia and Donald Trump’s USA.

On the other hand, campaigners called for full decarbonisation by 2050 and, as support has grown in the intervening years, now look likely to get their wish.

The draft strategy document commits shipping to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions either “by 2050 at the latest” or “by or around 2050”.

That second, weaker target could include language around “different national circumstances”, which would give more leeway to developing countries.

In their speeches to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) talks this week, the “2050 at the latest” goal was supported mainly by Pacific islands and developed countries.

The UK’s negotiator said 2050 should be “the absolute latest” and that the targets should be “in terms that can not be misunderstood”. IMO rules prohibit directly naming negotiators.

On the other hand, several big developing countries like China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia called for the weaker “around 2050” target and the inclusion of language about “different national circumstances”.

Latin America leads resistance to global shipping emission tax

Saudi Arabia’s representative called for a “flexible and adaptable approach” while China’s said that shipping enabled economic growth which gave the world more money to spend battling climate change.

Checkpoints

While supporting a 2050 net-zero goal, several negotiators echoed Costa Rica’s in saying that alone is “not enough” and that interim targets are necessary.

The sector currently has no 2030 or 2040 targets and its emissions are expected to keep rising, unless it changes its ways.

The draft strategy includes a emissions cut target of 20% for 2030 and 70% by 2040, on 2008 levels. These could be supplemented by an agreement to “striv[e] for” 25% and 75% respectively.

Both targets are less than what the European Union, USA, UK, Pacific islands and others were calling for and less than what the Science-Based Targets Initiative say is aligned with 1.5C of global warming.

Australia’s negotiator said they were “not ambitious enough” and “the world is watching – more than I’ve ever seen it watching”.

The Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda told journalists that “the science already told us” that “anything less than 36% by 2030 and 96% by 2040 will be detrimental” to limiting global warming to 1.5C and that will “have a devastating impact”.

But, sources involved in last week’s closed talks, said some countries like China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia didn’t want 2030 or 2040 targets at all.

Six main proposals for new shipping GHG targets on deck @IMOHQ this week… China leading charge against as apparently tougher targets in line with 1.5C would undermine UN #climate talks. Work that one out. pic.twitter.com/2D7fcCbLyd

— Ed King (@edking_I) July 2, 2023

The talks chair, Liberian diplomat Harry Conway, told Climate Home he would look for options that could gain consensus among nations.

Conway said he would “strive as much as possible to avoid votes” but member states can choose to call a vote, although they rarely do.

Vanuatu’s negotiator Ralph Regenvanu told a press briefing that they would think about calling a vote if a “minority group of countries” were going to stop a “high ambition outcome” against the will of an “overwhelming majority, and I mean like two-thirds”.

Clean fuels

The draft deal contains a target to get “zero or near-zero” sources to represent 5% of the energy used by international shipping by 2030. This target could be strengthened by the words “at least” and “striving for 10%”.

US ‘still on the fence’ as nations debate global shipping emission tax

Shipping is currently powered almost completely by fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “low-carbon fuels” represent near to 0% of shipping’s fuel.

Discussions on how to reduce emissions have proven more contentious, with several big emerging economies, led by Brazil, resisting a proposal to tax shipping emissions and use the money to clean up the sector.

All these targets will be debated by negotiators at the IMO’s marine environment protection committee until they come to a decision on Friday.

Asked if he thought the 2030 and 2040 targets would improve, Regenvanu told Climate Home he was “going to fight” for improved targets. “That’s what we’re here for, we’re here to lobby”, he said.

Correction: This article originally incorrectly said that Albon Ishoda said that anything less than a 96% emissions reduction by 2050 will be detrimental. He actually said 2040 not 2050. This was corrected on 5 July 2023.

The post Shipping set to boost climate targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

The media is not allowed to watch the talks, hosted by the United Nation’s shipping arm in London, but six sources in the room said Latin American countries were most vocal against the measure.

A Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson told Climate Home they opposed the levy, claiming it would distort trade, could push up the price of food and harm developing countries.

Germany-sized emissions

Global shipping produces about 3% of the world’s emissions, a similar amount to Germany, and the emissions from burning its fuel are currently only untaxed.

Pacific nations like the Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands, which are extremely vulnerable to climate change, have led the push for nations to agree to a tax, also known as a levy, on emissions.

Senegal shows African countries are not passive beneficiaries of climate finance

They want that price to start at $100 per tonne of greenhouse gas produced from burning ships’ fuel, which they say would raise $60-80bn a year. This amount would decline as shipping cleans up.

With journalists banned from the venue, the Marshall Islands lead shipping talks negotiator Albon Ishoda, spoke to Climate Home in the lobby of the International Maritime Organisation.

He said that shipping has a “dirty past” and has “a responsibility, as the servant of global trade to transition and to ensure a 1.5C future”.

Governments now have until July 7 to decide whether to tax emissions from the shipping sector, which are not included in the UN climate change talks.

Discomfort

Ishoda from the Marshall Islands said that a levy causes “discomfort” among many states. There has been a lot of “misinformation guided by disinformation” and developing countries think a levy will hurt them disproportionately more, he said.

“Fair enough, we’re not saying a levy will be great all round”, he said, but the $60-80 billion a year their proposal will raise could be used to decarbonise shipping and to address any negative economic effects.

Spain proposes improved 2030 climate target as it awaits Supreme Court ruling

As the talks are secret, Ishoda would not disclose who opposed the tax.

But six sources present told Climate Home that Brazil had led the resistance, joined by Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, Ecuador, China and South Africa

At a summit in Paris last week, none of these countries signed a statement in support of the levy. 

On the other side, sources said, several European nations and Vietnam spoke in support of a levy while the US, UK, India and others neither supported nor opposed it.

“Unpredictable consequences”

A spokesperson for Brazil’s foreign ministry told Climate Home by email that they oppose a levy as it “would pose greater risks than other measures, especially for developing countries”.

They said a University of Sao Paulo study had shown that developing countries that export low value-added products to far away places are “likely to be negatively affected” by the measure.

Brazil’s main exports are iron ore, soybeans, crude petroleum and sugar. The countries which take the most of its exports are China and the USA.

The study suggests that a levy would decrease exports across the world, boost some economies mainly in developed countries and harm others mainly in developing countries, particularly in Africa.

Impacts on GDP in % – red is a hit of more than 1% while blue is a gain (Photo credit: Pereda et al)

The Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson continued to say that the levy “could have unpredictable consequences” like changes to contracts and the substitution of agricultural crops and could increase food prices “with harmful effects for the poorest populations”.

Supporters of the $100 a tonne levy point out that the price of shipping fuel swings drastically over time. Over the last few years, it has varied from $200 a tonne to $600 a tonne, largely depending on the price of oil.

While Ishoda said the levy’s revenues could compensate for any negative effects, the Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson said that this money was a problem too.

They said that governments could come to rely on these revenues and then have to find substitute sources of income as the shipping sector decarbonises and the money stops coming in.

Not a climate finance fix

Over the last year, the idea of a tax on shipping emissions has shot from obscurity onto the agenda of some of the world’s most powerful people.

Hosting a summit in Paris of nearly 40 heads of state last week, French president Emmanuel Macron said he was “in favor of an international taxation” to finance climate action and later mentioned a tax on maritime transport as an option. US treasury sectretary Janet Yellen said at the summit that it was “something the United States will look at”.

Norway approves oil and gas fields despite Cop fossil phase-out push

Ishoda said he was at the Paris summit too. But “my message was simply to inform them – this money is not to fill in the gap where you failed”, he said.

The Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson said they were also concerned  that the levy “may have the effect of partly releasing developed countries of their [climate finance] commitments”.

The levy “introduces a debate on climate financing that should not be undertook at the IMO”, the spokesperson added.

Rich nations have failed to provide the developing world with the level of climate finance they promised, a failure large developing countries often hold up as a reason they can’t cut emissions faster.

Over this week and next, governments will decide whether to include a levy on shipping emissions in their list of potential measures to reduce shipping’s emissions.

The level of the levy and what the money will be user for will be decided at future meetings.

This article was updated on 30 June 2023 to include the Brazilian foreign ministry’s comments, to add China to the list of countries opposing the tax and to correct the proposal from $100 a tonne of fuel to $100 a tonne of greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide equivalent) produced by burning the fuel. 

The post Latin America leads resistance to global shipping emission tax appeared first on Climate Home News.

When asked about the tax during a press conference in Paris on Friday, US treasury secretary Janet Yellen said it was a “very constructive suggestion” and “something the United States will look at”.

But the US was not among the 22 countries who put their names to a statement backing the idea at the Paris summit.

A State Department spokesperson told Climate Home by email that “the United States has supported a greenhouse gas fuel standard, although an economic measure such as a maritime emissions pricing mechanism could complement this standard.”

They added: “The United States is open to consideration of a maritime pricing mechanism, although it would be necessary to work through a number of important design and policy issues that would not be resolved this year.”

Pacific push

A group of Pacific islands and others have been pushing for a levy for several years at the UN shipping agency, known as the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Public banks agree to check investments against countries’ climate plans

Over the next two weeks, government negotiators are meeting at the IMO’s London headquarters to decide whether to include a levy on shipping emissions in their list of measures to respond to climate change.

Most of the world’s products are moved abroad by ship, often using very polluting bunker fuels. The sector is responsible for around 3% of the world’s emissions, roughly the same as Germany.

The group of nations signing up to support a levy in Paris includes the European Union, several small island states, Vietnam, Kenya and major shipbuilder South Korea. More countries have indicated support in the IMO but were not at the meeting in Paris.

The US government has not explained its stance, either in public or at the behind-closed-door IMO talks this week. The State Department did not reply to Climate Home’s request for comment.

Unfinished paperwork is kneecapping solar’s potential in China

One delegate to the IMO talks, from a nation that supports the levy, told Climate Home the US was “still on the fence”.

Political reasons

E3G analyst Ronan Palmer said the US was not opposed to a tax but, with presidential elections next November, it “is just not going to move for it’s own political reasons”.

“If Biden gets up and says we need this tax for climate, imagine what [leading Republican presidential candidate Ron] De Santis is going to say,” Palmer said.

Aoife O’Leary, head of the shipping think tank Opportunity Green, said US concerns that a tax would have to be put to Congress were unfounded. The US’s domestic law to prevent pollution from ships, signed in 1980, allows amendments to the international convention which governs shipping emissions without approval from Congress, she said.

World Bank to suspend debt repayments for disaster-hit countries

As a major polluter, O’Leary added, “the US has a large moral responsibility to support this levy”.

Delaine McCullough, shipping lead at US-based campaign group Ocean Conservancy, said she thought the US would only support a levy if it was combined with a fuel standard, which tells shipping companies they have to make their fuel cleaner each year.

She said her understanding was that the US government felt that shipping companies would just pay the levy and not change to cleaner ways of operating.

But a levy high enough to change their behaviour would be difficult to get agreement on for “political” reasons, she said.

Rich nations pledge $2.7 billion for Senegal’s renewable rollout

Different options

Last year, governments agreed that they would put a price on shipping emissions. But they have not agreed what form this would take or how much should be paid.

Alternatives to a levy include a system where emissions are capped and anything above that cap is traded or a reward system for reducing emissions.

A group of Pacific islands are calling for a levy with a carbon price of $100 a tonne on bunker fuels, while the world’s biggest container shipping company Maersk has called for a $150 a tonne levy.

But the shipping industry’s trade association has previously supported a levy of just $2 a tonne of fuel to fund research and development of clean shipping technology.

Some nations, particularly in the developing world, are calling for the money to be spent not just on cleaning up the industry but on other climate projects.

This article was updated on 30 June to include the State Department’s comment

The post US ‘still on the fence’ as nations debate global shipping emission tax appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nigeria, Chile and Vietnam were among the countries calling for a net zero or zero carbon goal at the International Maritime Organization’s environmental committee meeting.

Campaign group Seas at Risk said there is now a clear majority in favour, which gives a good chance of getting the target agreed at the next meeting in June 2023.

Shipping is responsible for around 3% of global emissions. This share is expected to grow under the industry’s target to halve emissions from 2008 levels by 2050, as sectors like electricity generation clean up faster.

Like international air travel, international shipping is not mentioned in the Paris Agreement and is not covered by most countries’ climate plans.

Dwindling opposition

According to the Seas at Risk campaign, 32 countries spoke in favour of net zero or zero-carbon and 10 spoke against. The group said in a statement this represents a “dwindling opposition” as,  at the last meeting in May 2022, 24 countries were opposed.

Developed countries like the USA and most of Europe supported zero carbon. So did several island nations that are threatened by sea level rise like the Maldives and Marshall Islands.

Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda said: “We are the world’s most climate vulnerable state and we are calling for a 1.5[C]-aligned policy. We are among the many, many that will be sacrificed as collateral damage in this emergency which we have neither asked for or caused.”

He added that an 80% reduction by 2040 and zero emissions by 2050 were “the limits science is telling us are the minimum needed to keep a 1.5 agenda on the timetable. All the science and the progressive industry are telling us this is technically achievable and feasible.”

Cop15 global nature deal passes despite DR Congo’s objection

Large emerging economies like China, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates warned against adopting the target.

South Africa’s negotiator, who cannot be named without prior consent under IMO rules, said it could increase shipping costs and distort trade, particularly for developing countries. These costs would likely be passed on to consumers, they said.

India’s negotiator highlighted uncertainty around what green fuels will replace fossil fuels in ships. “We should not get carried away with mere global calls without any scientific evidence to back it or actionable solutions to achieve it,” their representative said.

Brazil’s negotiator told the IMO meeting room that “setting a very ambitious goal is not analogous to achieving it” and “such levels of ambition seem technically fragile and politically risky”.

Higher costs

A report commissioned by the UK government found that switching to cleaner fuel will increase costs, especially in the short term. By 2050, costs will be about a third higher. The report says that  this increase is no higher than those caused by fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels.

The energy-related cost of shipping per unit of transport supply if all the carbon costs are reinvested in the industry and shipping goes to near zero emissions by 2050 (Photo: Umas/E4tech/Screenshot)

One of the report’s authors is Tristan Smith from University College London. He told Climate Home that the cost increase means there’s “a good case for some support for developing countries and especially small island developing states and least developed countries during the transition”.

An October 2021 report by McKinsey found that meeting a target was technically possible but which clean fuel to use was not clear. Any low-carbon fuel, like hydrogen or ammonia, is likely to raise costs for shipowners. “With low prices and already established supply chains, fossil fuels are tough competitors to beat,” it found.

Compromise zone

One delegate, who did not want to be named, told Climate Home the holdouts were looking for concessions that could include exemptions or discounts from carbon prices for ships calling at their ports. Finance to upgrade ports or a priority share of carbon market revenues are other options to sweeten the deal.

Destruction of Brazil’s Cerrado savanna soars for third year in a row

At the IMO, the chair tries to reach consensus. If he’s unable to then countries vote and the position with the most votes wins.

The 2050 target could be to emit zero greenhouse gases or to emit net zero greenhouse gases. Net zero means that gases could be emitted but would have to be made up for by carbon offsets. Most countries preferred absolute zero.

Other topics for debate at June’s environmental committee meeting include interim targets for 2030 and 2040, and whether and how to impose a carbon price on ship emissions.

This article was amended on 20 December to more accurately reflect the method of voting in the IMO

The post Momentum grows towards 2050 zero carbon shipping target appeared first on Climate Home News.

At the International Maritime Organization (IMO) last week, countries broke a deadlock on mid-term measures to decarbonise the industry.

The meeting concluded that there was consensus to price shipping emissions “as part of a basket of mid-term measures,” according to a summary by the University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS), which is partnered with University College London’s (UCL) Energy Institute. There was general support for adopting a “well-to-wake” approach and pricing emissions from fuel production to consumption onboard a ship, UMAS said.

“[Pricing shipping emissions] is not a new concept to the IMO, but previous attempts to progress it have failed. It is therefore a huge step forward that there is now consensus on this,” said Tristan Smith, director of UMAS. 

Market-based, decarbonisation measures on the table include technical ones, like introducing a fuel standard, as well as economical ones, like setting a global carbon tax for the industry. They will be discussed at a meeting of the IMO’s environment committee (MEPC) next month.

“Pricing needs to be complemented with a mandatory measure like a fuel standard, but there is now a much improved potential for strong IMO incentivisation of shipping’s decarbonisation,” Smith said.

Responsible for nearly 3% of global emissions, ships emit around one billion tonnes of CO2 every year. Without further action, shipping emissions are projected to reach 90-130% of their 2008 levels by 2050.

Extinction Rebellion inspires Shell safety consultant to jump ship 

Major emerging economies have heavily resisted carbon tax proposals in the past. A proposal put forward by Pacific Island nations for a carbon price of $100 per tonne on bunker fuels previously got tepid support from EU nations and the US.

But at the working group meeting last week, all EU countries and the US spoke in favour of carbon pricing, with the UK, New Zealand and the Bahamas backing the measure for the first time. 

“There can finally be no doubt we will put a carbon price on shipping,” Aoife O’Leary, a long-time IMO observer and head of Opportunity Green, a non-profit focusing on international climate issues, told Climate Home News.

The price must be high enough to transition to zero-emission fuels quickly, as well as offering a mechanism to support developing countries, O’Leary said. Countries must move to next month’s MEPC with “ambition, equity and urgency,” she said.

“The IMO meeting last week is a major breakthrough,” said Diane Gilpin, CEO of the Smart Green Shipping Alliance, which develops tech solutions to help the industry decarbonise. “Obviously there’s a lot more detail to agree but in our experience ship owners are moving to the shadow of the whip.”

Rich countries seek coal-to-clean energy deals with Indonesia and Vietnam

The Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands have proposed a carbon price of $100 a tonne on bunker fuels, while the world’s biggest container shipping company Maersk has called for a $150/t levy to encourage the industry to switch to greener fuels.

But the shipping industry’s trade association has previously supported a levy of just $2 a tonne of fuel to fund research and development of clean shipping technology. That translates to a carbon price of $0.64/t.

Progress at the IMO came as the European Parliament approved its Fit For 55 package, which includes incorporating shipping in the bloc’s emissions trading scheme (ETS).

This means that all ships transporting goods to and from EU, regardless of the flag they fly, will be taxed on their emissions. As of 2024, ships will have to buy carbon allowances to cover all emissions during voyages in the EU and half of those generated by international voyages that start or finish at an EU port. Three quarters of the revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances will be put into an Ocean Fund to support the industry’s decarbonisation efforts.

“We need ambitious action at every level if we are to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said O’Leary. 

“The IMO has only given provisional agreement to a carbon price, which hopefully will move ambitiously forward but it is definitely not at the stage where it could be said that it will achieve a reduction in shipping emissions in line with 1.5C on its own,” she said.

The post UN body makes ‘breakthrough’ on carbon price proposal for shipping appeared first on Climate Home News.

When burned, heavy fuel oil emits black carbon – sooty particles that absorb sunlight and trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. It is a particular problem in the Arctic, where it darkens the ice so it reflects less light back into space. Between 2015 and 2019, black carbon emissions from ships increased by 85% in the Arctic, according to the Clean Arctic Alliance.

Campaigners welcomed the move, which they said could significantly cut pollution, but noted it was a voluntary measure and relied on governments to introduce supportive policies.

“If all shipping currently using heavy fuel oils while in the Arctic were to switch to distillate fuel, there would be an immediate reduction of around 44% in black carbon emissions from these ships,” said Sian Prior, from the Clean Arctic Alliance. 

“If particulate filters were installed on board these vessels, black carbon emissions could be reduced by over 90%”, she added.

“It is questionable how many private companies will act as a result,” John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, told Climate Home News.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Russia resisted binding action on black carbon, according to Maggs. “There is likely to be ongoing hostility towards and blocking of the much needed mandatory measures at IMO, but now individual states have been given a green light to take action themselves,” he said. 

Kenyan forest communities sidelined as government misses two billion tree target

Despite mounting pressure during Cop26, little headway was made on decarbonising the shipping industry – which emits around one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. The agreed IMO target is to halve that by 2050 – and without further action, shipping emissions are projected to reach 90-130% of their 2008 levels.

Countries considered strengthening a global climate goal to reduce shipping emissions, but deferred a decision until 2023, when the IMO is set to review its long-term strategy.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

While countries including the UK, US and Panama – which has the biggest flag registry – backed the Pacific resolution, major emerging economies including India and South Africa objected on equity grounds. They said rich countries should act first and provide finance to help them transition to cleaner fuels.

Despite the pushback, campaigners said the parameters of ambition were shifting. Several years ago, there was strong resistance to setting an absolute emissions goal for industry. At last week’s meeting, the debate centred on whether the target should be zero or net zero emissions. 

Morocco accused of “greenwashing occupation” of Western Sahara 

“Most of those who spoke were talking about absolute zero by 2050 and not net zero with ‘get out of jail free’ offsets,” said Maggs. 

India, the UAE, Bahamas and Liberia were among the countries wanting to leave the door open to carbon offsets.

“It’s important that the IMO moves forward, focused on real in-sector emission reductions and not think it can instead use accountants to spirit away its climate impact,” said Maggs.

The post UN shipping body agrees voluntary measures to cut black carbon in the Arctic appeared first on Climate Home News.

That was the upshot of talks in the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) environment committee on Monday and Tuesday.

There was no consensus behind a specific proposal by three Pacific island nations – the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Kiribati – to make international shipping emissions-free by 2050.

While countries including the UK, US, Canada, Japan and Panama, which has the world’s largest flag registry, backed the resolution, major emerging economies including India, China, South Africa and Turkey, objected on equity grounds. They said the strategy needed to reflect differentiated responsibilities for climate change and deliver finance to help them decarbonise, with targets based on scientific data.

There were signs of broader support in principle for setting a zero, or net zero, target for the sector, which is responsible for nearly 3% of global emissions. This was influenced by the latest science and pressure emerging from this month’s Cop26 climate summit to do more.

“We have a clear majority for zero by 2050,” said Aoife O’Leary, a long-time observer of IMO negotiations and head of Opportunity Green, a non-profit focusing on international climate issues, including shipping. “I’m pleasantly surprised that the Cop26 momentum is holding, although it could be better and stronger.”

Comment: After Cop26, countries must turn climate promises into action on global shipping

Ships emit around one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. Without further action, shipping emissions are projected to reach 90-130% of their 2008 levels by 2050.

The IMO has a target of reducing international shipping’s emissions by at least 50% by 2050, compared to 2008 levels, which campaigners say is woefully inadequate and far from what is needed to limit global heating to 1.5C.

In the run-up to Cop26, UN chief Antonio Guterres singled out the shipping and aviation sectors for failing to set global targets consistent with meeting the 1.5C goal and called for shipping to be zero emissions by 2050.  “[These sectors’ targets] are more consistent with warming way above 3 degrees,” he said. 

At the summit in Glasgow, 14 nations, including the US, UK and several European countries, endorsed a declaration calling for zero emission shipping by 2050.

However some EU countries that signed the Cop declaration did not support the Pacific islands’ proposal, describing it as “waste of time”. They said efforts should instead be directed towards defining clear short-term targets and mandatory measures to implement these.

Nigeria commits to annual carbon budgets to reach net zero under climate law

“We believe it is not only important to highlight the need for an ambitious target for 2050 but also for absolute emission targets for 2030 and 2040,” one of Germany’s delegates at the IMO told Climate Home News.

“We are in favour of the adoption of a dedicated work plan for the revision of the initial strategy which includes [absolute 2030 and 2040] targets,” said the German delegate. Delegates for Spain and France told Climate Home that they opposed the resolution on similar grounds.

The IMO has a goal of reducing the sector’s carbon intensity – rather than its absolute emissions – by 40% by 2030, on 2008 levels. This translates to just a 2% reduction each year, whereas a 6–7% annual reduction is needed to be compatible with 1.5C, according to analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

While supportive of short term action, campaigners said a review of long term ambition could not wait until 2023.

“That’s two years lost during which a clearly stated new higher level of IMO ambition could have been influencing the development of appropriate new measures to cut shipping’s climate impact,”  John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, told Climate Home News. 

“In those two years the industry will have emitted around 20% of its total 1.5C carbon budget,” he said. 

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

The main barrier to action is the belief that the transition can take place in the 2030s, said Maggs. “It has to happen in the 2020s. Shifting to zero by 2050 will help with this but only make a big difference if the logic of 1.5 degrees is translated into an ambitious 2030 target.”

“At the moment there are too many shipowners passing the buck and waiting for alternative fuels,” he said.

There was debate over whether a target should be for net zero or absolute zero emissions. India, the UAE, Bahamas and Liberia were among countries wanting to leave the door open to carbon offsets.

“The language regarding increased ambition and getting to zero by 2050 is very muddled at this point and, so far, has no teeth. There are references to net zero and carbon neutrality which are worrying, but currently countries are only making general comments about their positions,” Jim Gamble, the Arctic programme director at non-profit Pacific Environment, told Climate Home News,

The post UN shipping body considers zero emissions goal, defers decision to 2023 appeared first on Climate Home News.

World leaders, youth, entrepreneurs, and citizens gathered and debated how we will save ourselves from the climate crisis we have caused.

As the leader of a country whose very existence depends on the outcome, I was heartened to see so many people take to the streets to demand action.

Now I ask everyone to look beyond the Cop and push for climate ambition and equity in international shipping.

Cop26 concluded with lots of commitments and promises from both the public and private sectors.

Although this is still not enough, it is more than we have seen before, and hopefully marks the start of a new momentum that will lead us to a zero-carbon future by 2050.

For the billions of people across the globe in harm’s way, there is simply no other choice.

African nations settled for ‘moral pact’ with US on adaptation finance at Cop26

If words are not translated into action, we have accomplished nothing. Because solving climate change is not about attending a conference.

It is about making transformational change to the way the world works, ending our reliance on fossil fuels and ensuring that – for the first time in human history – we are not building systems that exploit the most vulnerable among us, but instead increase equity.

The first test comes up this week, at a meeting of the UN’s shipping agency called the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

From the historic banks of the River Thames in London, 175 IMO member states regulate international shipping.

A sector that delivers 80% of all goods across the globe – yet produces an estimated 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions every year.

Comment: The street and the boardroom are closer than they have ever been on climate

For decades the IMO has quietly gone about its business, a club of nations and shipping companies shaking hands well outside the public eye.

The IMO’s current climate ambition – adopted just in 2018 – is to reduce emissions by at least 50% by 2050.

This is a far cry from what is needed to address the “code red” warning we have been given on climate change, and well out of step with current calls for a zero-emission world by 2050.

One group of countries trying to change this at Cop26 has been the Climate Vulnerable Forum.

It includes over 50 vulnerable countries that are on the frontline of climate impacts as well as major maritime nations like my own, with key roles to play at the IMO.

In the Dhaka-Glasgow Declaration adopted at Cop26, we called on the IMO to set targets that will clearly align the sector with the goal of keeping temperature increases to 1.5C or below, and to implement policy that simultaneously drives technology change and improves equity.

With Cop26 over, and the underwhelming progress made to raise climate finance and commit targeted actions on loss and damage and adaptation, this call has never been more timely.

Mia Mottley: the ‘fearless’ leader pushing a global settlement for the climate frontlines

The IMO has in the past taken bold actions, such as on safety and oil spill prevention.

With shipping the cornerstone of new energy use and supply, as well as of trade and development, the agency is uniquely positioned to show leadership again and drive the action needed to deliver on climate ambition, innovation, and equity.

The world must turn its gaze to the IMO this November. There, countries – the same countries that have just left Glasgow with grand statements of commitment and ambition – will be deciding whether to translate their climate pledges into concrete action at the IMO.

They have in their power to choose a new path for international shipping, with strong investment in green technologies, clean fuels and ports, and economic opportunities that support a just and equitable transition to a zero-emissions future.

Or they can continue with uncertainty, weak investments and a trajectory that will see emissions from shipping rise by up to 30% by 2050, making the goals of the Paris Agreement all but unattainable.

If the IMO takes bold and ambitious action, I believe there is hope for the larger commitments laid out in Glasgow. If not, it will be another nail in the coffin of nations like the Marshall Islands, and the millions of people whose homes and livelihoods will be destroyed by uncontrolled climate change.

I call on fellow leaders, heads of states, CEOs, and civil society, from around the world to help ensure that actions taken at the IMO and across the international community measure up to the rhetoric we have heard. It is up to us to shine the light on these discussions and ensure there is action.

David Kabua is the president of the Marshall Islands. 

The post After Cop26, countries must turn climate promises into action on global shipping appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a proposal to the UN’s shipping body, the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Kiribati cited a major report published earlier this month summarising the latest climate science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said to limit global heating to 1.5C, the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement, global carbon dioxide emissions must fall rapidly and reach net zero by 2050. On current trends, the temperature threshold is due to be breached by 2040.

In a letter to his fellow delegates, the Marshall Islands’ ambassador to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Albon Ishoda wrote: “The findings of the recent [IPCC] report could not be clearer and fill us, the most vulnerable to this climate emergency, with alarm.”

He added: “Humanity is at a tipping point. Without immediate and decisive action to now peak and rapidly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of all sectors, states and cultures such as ours will be consigned to history.”

Rising sea levels make coastal flooding a common occurrence for the low-lying Marshall Islands (Photo: Genevieve French/Greenpeace)

In 2018, shipping produced more than a billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent globally, a 10% increase on 2012 and more than the annual emissions of Germany.

World governments’ current plan, agreed after fierce debate at the IMO in 2018, is to reduce international shipping’s emissions at least 50% by 2050 on 2008 levels while pursuing complete decarbonisation. Cargo ships have a life expectancy of 25-30 years, making the long term goal directly relevant to ships built this decade.

Tristan Smith, a low carbon shipping expert at University College London, said the proposal would remove the initial strategy’s “ambiguity”, making full decarbonisation a time-limited target not just an “upper bound” of ambition.

As well as absolute emissions reduction targets, the current strategy says carbon intensity – the emissions from each tonne of cargo shipped a given distance – should be reduced 40% by 2030 on 2008 levels. That translates to a 2% reduction each year. Ishoda dismissed this as “business as usual”.

The lesson from German floods: prepare for the unimaginable

The island states’ proposal will be considered at the IMO’s next environmental committee meeting 22-26 November, shortly after UN climate talks at Cop26 in Glasgow, UK.

In 2018, there was resistance to high ambition on climate from major emerging economies like Brazil and India, oil producers Iran and Saudi Arabia and seafaring nations like the Philippines. They raised concerns a stronger target would increase costs, holding back trade and development.

The US, which opposed the existing target under Donald Trump, is taking a more ambitious line on climate action under Joe Biden. How that applies at the IMO is unclear. In April, climate envoy John Kerry said that shipping should have zero emissions by 2050, but at the IMO in June the US representative declined to endorse a proposed carbon price on bunker fuel.

Ishoda told Climate Home News: “We are not naïve to the idea that it may be a very difficult discussion in the IMO – but we are also not naïve to the most recent IPCC report which has clearly justified that more needs to be done in terms of emissions reductions.”

The IMO’s current climate targets were agreed at this MEPC meeting in London in 2018 (Photo: IMO/Flickr)

Smith said “it is possible to be passed”. He added: “There is a lot of pressure on the IMO because [the last environmental committee meeting] MEPC76 was so underwhelming and that will likely lead to it being quite heavily criticised at Cop26.”

The Paris Agreement, signed by 196 countries, aims to hold global warming to “well below 2C” above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C. According to Climate Action Tracker, the IMO’s current targets are consistent with more than 3C of warming.

Since the IMO’s strategy was agreed in 2018, many countries have committed to net zero within their borders by 2050. Smith said: “If you’re already signed up to net zero by 2050 in your economy, why would you not want zero emissions in the international shipping?”

Those signed up to net zero by 2050 include Argentina and Chile, coastal countries heavily reliant on shipping that have opposed climate action at the IMO.

The post Pacific islands call for zero carbon shipping by 2050, citing IPCC report appeared first on Climate Home News.

At an environmental committee meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands jointly proposed a carbon price of $100 a tonne on bunker fuels.

Major emerging economies mainly opposed the measure and the principle of a carbon tax, while European countries backed carbon pricing in some form but did not endorse the specific proposal. The US was neutral on the topic.

The Marshall Islands ambassador to the IMO Albon Ishoda told Climate Home News: “There is clearly division at IMO as to those who are prepared to proactively move forward and those who prefer to delay at all costs.”

One of the only countries to directly support the proposal was Tonga. Its representative said it was “the only measure so far proposed which can achieve 1.5C alignment and an equitable transition”, referring to the most ambitious global warming limit in the Paris Agreement.

G7 offers ‘peanuts’ to developing world, putting climate ambition in doubt

European countries like France, The Netherlands, Italy and Finland said the $100 levy should be considered by a working group set up by the IMO on medium and long-term measures to reduce emissions.

Climate Home News understands that developed countries regard the price as too high and have concerns about how the funds raised will be spent.

When asked if $100 was too high, Ishoda told Climate Home News: “The science is clear that $100/t is the minimal floor, not the ceiling, needed now to send a clear unequivocal signal to market.”

He added: “Obviously it will need to be reviewed and ratcheted up quite quickly to meet the price differential between fossil fuels and alternatives. But the change in price with a $100 levy is well within the price fluctuations of existing fuels.”

The world’s biggest container shipping company Maersk has called for a $150 levy on shipping fuel to shift the industry towards green alternatives.

Larger developing countries like China, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia – as well as Russia – said they had concerns about a carbon tax.

The world’s biggest shipping registry, Panama argued a carbon tax could increase transport costs, endanger food security and harm the economy.

Covid-19: UK to provide vaccines for Cop26 delegates

The representative of Vanuatu argued that an increase in the cost of fuel and transport would be passed on to consumers. This would have a disproportionate impact on small-island developing states.

Albon Ishoda told Climate Home News: “In the vast majority of cases, the increase in transport goods for most goods and cargo is highly marginal”.

However, he said, “on a narrow range of cases, especially for countries such as mine, there is a risk of disproportionate negative impact and this will need a mechanism to compensate these situations.

“But we need to work these matters out alongside the development of the measure. As we keep saying we are out of time.”

The proposal will be revisited in November. Also kicked to the next meeting was a more modest proposal, supported by the shipping industry’s trade association and several states, for a levy of $2 a tonne of fuel to fund research and development of clean shipping technology. That translates to a carbon price of $0.64/t.

Most developing countries opposed it while many European and Pacific countries argued it was a distraction from carbon pricing at a high enough level to encourage adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies.

The IMO did agree a package of short term measures to trim ships’ carbon intensity 2% every year between 2023 and 2026.

That works out at an 11% efficiency improvement between 2019 and 2026. The US, UK and most European countries wanted at least a 22% improvement.

Transport and Environment shipping campaigner Faig Abbasov called the IMO’s decision “egregious”, “cosmetic” and “greenwashing”.

According to International Council on Clean Transportation analysis, this trajectory is no better than business as usual. To be compatible with a 1.5C global warming limit, a 6-7% annual reduction in carbon intensity is needed.

The post Pacific islands make lonely case for carbon price on shipping appeared first on Climate Home News.

But it also took the crisis of this major trade artery getting blocked for almost a week for us to simply notice the vast ships underpinning our modern consumer lifestyles.

The Suez Canal crisis is not just a story of delayed goods and revenue loss — it is also a story of a heavily polluting industry growing at a pace that is inconsistent with the limits of a liveable planet.

In the quest to bring us the goods we want ever more cheaply, shipping has pushed harder to reach economies of scale, and container ships have assumed absurd, gargantuan proportions.

As recently as 2007, the biggest container ship in the world carried 8,000 containers. The Ever Given — finally freed on Monday from the bank of the Suez Canal — carries over 20,000 containers. Some ships are now close to 25,000.

It’s not just the size of the ships; the world’s fleet has quadrupled in size since the 1980s. That’s increased the strain on our oceans by exacerbating underwater noise levels, harming whales and dolphins. It has caused the rise of plastic waste dumping, oil discharge and the shuttle of invasive species around the globe, causing the extinction of native plants and marine animals.

Saudi Arabia aims for 50% renewable energy by 2030, backs huge tree planting initiative

Today there are around 60,000 ships carrying 11 billion tonnes of cargo every year — around 80% of world trade.

Most of everything we own – clothes, shoes, food, technology – at one points sits on a giant container ship like the Ever Given that rose to fame last week.

Every single one of these ships in operation runs on fossil fuels, but not just your everyday petrol or diesel. Container ships run on the world’s cheapest, dirtiest liquid fossil fuel – known as “heavy fuel oil”.

This is the gunky black tar-like substance that comes out the bottom of an oil refinery once all the transparent road fuels like gasoline and diesel have been separated out.

Heavy fuel oil contains up to 500 times as much cancer-causing sulphur dioxide than the legal maximum allowed in road fuels.

Sometimes even chemical waste and melted car tires, that companies don’t want to pay to dispose of safely, are just blended into shipping fuel.

Out of sight, out of mind, shipping companies have enjoyed a free pass to pollute for decades.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Even after somewhat improved sulphur standards finally came into effect in 2020, decades after equivalent rules for power plants, shipping’s dirty air pollution is still linked to 250,000 deaths and 6.4 million childhood asthma cases every year — just the cost of doing business, apparently.

Meanwhile, shipping continues to emit one billion tons of climate-heating greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year. That’s more than all but the top five largest emitting countries in the world, we just never talk about it. Swedish activist Greta Thunberg’s right — governments typically exclude shipping emissions from their climate action plans, pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

And in case anyone’s worried about emissions from Evergreen ships like these, carrying our stuff from outsourced factories, don’t be! Emissions from intl aviation and shipping are excluded from our statistics. So in theory, they don’t exist. It feels better that way, doesn’t it? pic.twitter.com/X8ZAaMDNN2

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) March 28, 2021

Just like other sectors, shipping is capable of running on renewable energy — there are over 100 pilot projects for zero-emission shipping underway. But consumers and governments have not yet demanded that ships make this energy transition.

The shipping industry is in bed with the fossil fuel industry (40% of the sector’s global cargo consist of coal, oil, and fossil gas) so transitioning ships off fossil fuels will require sustained pressure, action, and outrage.

There are signs of change. One shipping industry executive blew the whistle in 2017, expressing his “contempt and disgust” at the lobbyists being paid to weaken and prevent any environmental regulation.

Maybe the rare public attention on the shipping sector resulting from this Suez Canal crisis will spur enough of us to ask ourselves and our governments to finally steer shipping onto a sustainable path.

In concrete terms, two of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world, the low-lying Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands in the Pacific, earlier this month submitted a ground-breaking proposal to the UN’s International Maritime Organisation: to apply a global carbon price of $100/mt to the shipping industry, to pay for its upgrade to cleaner, zero-carbon fuels.

For those of us working from home, enjoying cheap home delivery of goods produced on the other side of the world, it’s the least we can do to ask our governments to support it.

Madeline Rose is the climate campaign director for Pacific Environment, an environmental group with consultative status at the International Maritime Organization.

The post It took the Suez Canal crisis to highlight the scale of the polluting shipping sector appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post How the shipping industry can halve climate-warming black carbon in the Arctic appeared first on Climate Home News.

The oil spill has been described as one of the worst ecological disasters ever to hit the western Indian Ocean. It has devastated the livelihoods of local fishermen and tour operators, who were already struggling to stay afloat due to the coronavirus pandemic, campaigners on the ground say.

Shipping and ocean experts told Climate Home News that the incident has raised serious concerns about the safety of the fuel used on board the Wakashio and its long-term environmental impacts. More vessels could fail and cause marine pollution if the lessons of the disaster are not learned, they warned.

Yet the Mauritian government, Japanese ship owner Nagashiki Shipping and fuel supplier BP are withholding crucial information that could aid clean-up efforts and prevent future shipwrecks.

An envoy from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) downplayed the environmental threat, saying the leaked fuel was “just like skin cream”.

“It begs the question whether the shipping industry is really holding itself to greater accountability on the product that it uses,” Yuvan Beejadhur, a former blue economy expert at the World Bank and coordinator of citizen movements in Mauritius, told Climate Home News.

The fuel

In January 2020, the IMO – the UN body responsible for international shipping – introduced a sulphur cap, banning ships from using marine fuels with a sulphur content above 0.5%.

This measure to protect public health from sulphur oxide emissions led to the oil industry developing a wide range of very low sulphur fuel oils (VLSFOs).

VLSFOs are cheap, blended fuels made from residue oil, the dregs at the bottom of the barrel, and more refined products, such as gasoline or diesel.

When VLSFOs started being used in January 2020, very little was known about them, according to Dr Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance. “Nothing on levels of air pollution when they were burned, nothing on how they reacted if spilled and nothing on the environmental impact,” she told Climate Home News.

In 2020 several studies were published which indicate that VLSFOs are far from green. Although they emit significantly less sulphur when burned than other marine fuels, they cause higher black carbon emissions because they contain a large number of aromatic compounds, according to a study by the German Environment Agency, seen by Climate Home.

Besides the emissions they produce, there are also concerns about how VLSFOs react with water. 

A local volunteer assists with the clean-up of the Wakashio oil spill in Mauritius in August 2020 (Photo: Fawzee Mohamad Barkhut)

Two weeks after the Wakashio grounding, the IMO sent representative Matthew Sommerville to provide technical advice and assist with the clean up. In comments to reporters in Mauritius, Sommerville described the spilled VLSFO as “not really black thick oil… It’s just like skin cream.”

“It goes away. It’s not the end of the world – it cleans. Look how easily it is cleaning off. It could have been a lot worse if it had been a different type of oil,” he said. 

When asked by Climate Home News if the IMO backed this characterisation of VLSFO, spokesperson Nathasha Brown said: “We will wait for the full report to see [if there are] any lessons to be learned.”

Experts disagree with Sommerville’s assessment and say that VLSFO has similar characteristics to traditional heavy fuel oil (HFO), a viscous oil which solidifies quickly in water, making it incredibly difficult to clean up.

A 2020 study by Norwegian marine research institution SINTEF found that VLSFO has a similar composition to HFO when spilled in water. “The oils tested indicate a high degree of persistence on the sea surface,” the SINTEF researchers said, adding that “the oil spill response can be even more challenging” than in the case of traditional fuel oil, such as HFO, particularly in cold water.

Angola’s oil dependency thwarts its exit from the group of poorest nations

A report seen by Climate Home by the International Standards Organization, which will be discussed at an IMO meeting in March, also classes VLSFO as an HFO based on its density. 

“It can be concluded that the vast majority of VLSFOs would fall under the definition of HFO in the HFO ban approved by MEPC 75,” the report noted, citing the decision by the IMO’s environmental committee in November to restrict HFO use in Arctic waters. 

In late August, a month after the Wakashio ran aground, dead dolphins started washing up on Mauritius’ shores. A spokesperson for the fisheries ministry attributed the deaths to shark attacks, telling Reuters that the dolphins had wounds and blood around their jaws, “no trace of oil however.” Environmental groups called on the government to conduct an autopsy. To date the results of the autopsy remain unknown.

“The dolphins, whales and porpoises that died – it’s still not been explained whether it was caused by sulphur fuel. No results have been communicated,” said Beejadhur. 

Beejadhur said many of the long-term environmental impacts of VLSFO have not been thoroughly assessed, despite the fact that the fuel is now widely used within the industry.

The Wakashio wrecked off the coast of Mauritius (Photo: Fawzee Mohamad Barkhut)

The shipwreck

According to the Wakashio’s owner, Nagashiki, the ship ran aground because the crew was sailing too close to the shore and was not aware of safety procedures. 

“There was a lack of awareness of the dangers of navigating close to the coast… and insufficient implementation of regulations that must be observed in order to safely execute voyages,” the company said in a statement. 

But experts say that VLSFO has been linked to engine wear and could have caused the engine of the Wakashio to fail. No assessment of the condition of the engine has been made public.

Sulphur has some lubricating qualities and if it is removed from the fuel, engines can get stuck, Branko Berlan, the representative for the International Transport Federation at the IMO, told Climate Home News.

IMO: Major ship emissions study flags a bigger role for governments

If operators don’t use other acidic lubricants, similar to sulphur, abrasive calcium deposits can build up inside the engine cylinders which could ultimately lead to engine wear or failure, according to a report by fuel testing company Veritas Petroleum Services (VPS), seen by Climate Home. VPS said in May it had identified over 40 ships that had experienced major engine damage since they started using VLSFO in January 2020.

Part of the problem is that operators do not know what type of fuel they are handling and how to ensure it is safe to use on board their ships, according to Berlan. “Exact procedures and involved substances are unknown. You never know what you are receiving as there is no regulation around quality,” he said. 

“Any petroleum-based fuel oil has potential safety risks. Ship engineers and ship masters need to be aware of potential safety issues with the fuel they use and have to manage any risks,” said the IMO’s Brown, adding that safety guidance was issued before ships started using VLSFO.

“Through 2020, and into 2021 to date, [the] IMO has not received any reports of safety issues linked to VLSFO,” Brown said. 

The missing sample

One of the biggest omissions from the investigation into the Wakashio grounding is that fuel from onboard the ship was never tested by independent analysts. 

In September, Mauritius’ ministry of environment said it had asked the Australian Maritime Safety Agency (AMSA) to carry out an independent analysis of a fuel sample from the Wakashio. 

AMSA told Forbes in January that it never received a fuel sample from BP, the oil company that supplied the fuel used by the Wakashio. 

BP said it has analysed the fuel but has not publicly disclosed the chemical composition. 

The fuel on board the Wakashio “fully met the specified standard that is recognised across the international bunkering industry,” BP said in a statement. BP said that the fuel was also tested by Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL), a subsidiary of Nagashiki Shipping and the company that chartered the Wakashio.

“MOL raised no concerns about the quality of the oil, nor have the operators of seven other vessels that received the same fuel,” BP said. A spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions about why BP did not supply a sample to AMSA as requested.

Local volunteers made booms to help contain the spilled fuel oil (Photo: Fawzee Mohamad Barkhut)

But experts say much remains unknown about VLSFO and it is critical samples from the Wakashio are analysed to avoid future disasters and help Mauritius recover from this oil spill.

“It’s paramount to know the oil’s chemical composition so you can tailor the best and most successful response. You don’t have an idea of the compounds in there. [They] dictate how toxic [the spill] may be,” according to Chris Reddy, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who has analysed major oil spills, including the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. 

“Knowledge about this spill could help us inform how things may play out in Mauritius,” Reddy told Climate Home News. He and his team analysed a sample of floating fuel residue, collected on 16 August.

“We don’t know if this was a low-sulphur material, but it’s unlike anything we’ve seen spilled before—that alone demands a closer look,” Reddy said after analysing the sample in October.

“We didn’t get the original product from the ship. A sample was collected from the beach and was a week or two old. Based on experience, it changed a little [compared to] the spilled fuel oil.” Reddy told Climate Home News.

Unanswered questions

“Today, uncertainty about Mauritius recovery persists, while no major action has been taken to protect the island’s waters from a future incident,” climate campaigners wrote in an Al Jazeera article this month. 

“No results have been communicated,” said Beejadhur, adding that the IMO and government investigators have had little engagement with local fishermen, whose livelihoods have been destroyed by the oil spill. 

Campaigners are critical of the meagre compensation offered to affected communities. The government set up a “Wakashio solidarity grant” for around 3,000 people, offering them a one-time pay out of Rs 20,000 ($500), according to activist group Rezistans ek Alternativ.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

According to maritime law, the ship owner is responsible for damage caused by an oil spill. That means Nagashiki Shipping is liable. Nagashiki said in July that it would “deal with compensation claims based on applicable laws”.

Due to a technicality, that compensation could be capped at $18 million, regardless of the scale of the damage.

To date no payout has been made and it remains unclear how far the compensation negotiations have progressed. Mauritius’ ministry of the blue economy, marine resources, fisheries and shipping did not respond to Climate Home’s questions regarding the insurance claim.

Mauritians worry that they will be left to deal with the recovery from the devastating oil spill themselves. 

“The saddest fact is if we go back to normal and people forget about the Wakashio crisis,” said Beejadhur.

The post Mauritius oil spill: questions mount over ship fuel safety appeared first on Climate Home News.

Last week the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) was accused of “kicking the can 10 years down the road” after it approved two measures that campaigners say fall far short of the ambition needed.

The UN body responsible for international shipping approved a “meaningless” ban on the use of heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters and a package of energy efficiency measures that is projected to shave just 1% off shipping emissions this decade.

“What we have seen is a real dereliction of duty from the IMO. We are in an emergency,” said Diane Gilpin, CEO of the Smart Green Shipping Alliance, an organisation that develops technological solutions to help the shipping industry decarbonise.

It now falls to governments and the industry to curb ship emissions in the next decade. Despite efforts by major companies, such as Danish shipping giant Maersk, to trial new technology and more sustainable fuels, industry-wide progress is slow.

“We have all the technology we need but we don’t have access to funding,” said Gilpin. One problem is the ship owner bears the cost of efficiency improvements but does not directly benefit, as fuel bills are typically paid by the company chartering the vessel. Another is that banks are hesitant to fund immature technology.

“We need to be introducing a carbon price and it needs to be realistic. It would demonstrate to investors that their high-risk investment will be rewarded and that the carbon we are saving is reflected in the value,” said Gilpin. 

A carbon price on bunker fuel is under consideration at the IMO. Last week’s meeting initiated talks on a mandatory levy of $2 per tonne of fuel to fund research and development projects worth $5bn over the next decade. Many EU countries were supportive of the proposal, but China, Russia and the US expressed concerns about funding and the levy’s impact on shipowners operating in remote regions.

Those negotiations could take years. Meanwhile, there is scope for national and regional authorities to crack down on polluting ships. Here we outline what the EU, the US and China are doing to tackle rising shipping emissions.

What are major shipping hubs doing to reduce emissions?

Including shipping in regional carbon markets is one effective way to accelerate decarbonisation. In September, the EU parliament voted to include maritime CO2 emissions in its emissions trading scheme (ETS) – the world’s biggest carbon market – from 2022, following criticism that shipping is the only sector to not face emissions reduction targets.

Shipping experts say that schemes similar to the ETS may be introduced in other regions over the next decade. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see regional shipping carbon markets in North America and east Asia in the next ten years,” Bryan Comer, senior marine researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), told Climate Home News.

The EU

From 2022, shipowners will be forced to buy carbon permits to cover emissions during voyages in Europe and international voyages that start or finish at a European port, under a regulation to be adopted early next year. 

The EU is a major shipping hub, with ships transporting 75% of external trade and 36% of internal trade, according to the European Commission. 

The inclusion of shipping emissions in the ETS “will provide a huge incentive for the fleet to take this issue more seriously,” according to Gilpin. 

The EU parliament is set to propose legislation next year that mandates the use of sustainable marine fuels on ships calling at European ports.

The Fuel EU Maritime regulation would be the first transport mandate of its kind as it targets users, rather than fuel suppliers and manufacturers, according to Faig Abbasov, shipping programme director at Brussels-based think-tank Transport & Environment.

“If the mandate were on suppliers, ships would simply bunker [refuel] outside the EU. But if it is a mandate on EU journeys, then there is no risk of evasion,” said Abbasov.

The US

The US is considering introducing an emissions monitoring, reporting and verification programme for ships entering US ports. “That’s the first step towards controlling emissions from those ships,” said Comer. 

In the past the US has shown little leadership when it comes to reducing shipping emissions, often siding with countries pushing for low enforcement, such as Japan and Norway, said Abbasov.

Shipping observers hope that the US will ramp up its climate ambition when Joe Biden takes the presidency in January. In his climate platform, Biden pledged to “lead the world to lock in enforceable international agreements to reduce emissions in global shipping and aviation.” Some clean shipping groups are calling on Biden to introduce a cap-and-trade program, similar to the EU’s ETS, which requires large emitters to buy permits for their greenhouse gas emissions, said Abbasov.

“Biden’s climate ambition for shipping will be measured by national or regional schemes, similar to those in the EU. A true climate leader cannot afford outsourcing everything to international organisations. Genuine climate leadership starts at home,” he said.

Other options for the Biden administration include a carbon tax, a low-emissions standard or a zero emissions regulation for ships while they are docked in US ports, according to Comer. 

In the US, California is leading the way on reducing shipping pollution. California requires all ships to use low-sulphur fuels instead of scrubbers, which dump acidic water and heavy metals into the sea, according to Comer. The state introduced a cap-and-trade scheme in 2012, but this does not cover shipping emissions. “It may be possible to bring ships under the cap-and-trade programme,” said Comer. 

China 

China has been monitoring air pollution from ships since 2016 when it established a domestic emission control area (DECA) at the Shanghai and Yangtze River Delta ports. It was later rolled out at other key ports across the country. To comply with DECA regulations, all ships docking at these ports must switch to a low-sulphur fuel, which contains 80% less sulphur than standard marine fuels, according to Freda Fung, a consultant for the Asia green shipping programme at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

These regulations are driven by health rather than climate concerns. Sulphur dioxide has been linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Rather than contributing to global warming, sulphur dioxide reflects sunlight back into space and therefore has a cooling effect on the atmosphere.

Local governments in Shenzhen and Guangzhou are offering ship owners incentives, such as grants, to encourage them to retrofit existing ships with electric or liquefied natural gas propulsion and have invested heavily in onshore power infrastructure at seaports, Fung told Climate Home News.

China has introduced several regional carbon markets in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen and plans to launch a national carbon trading scheme in the next five years. Following the first phase which will focus on emissions from the power sector, the scheme will be extended to cover seven further sectors, including the petrochemical and steel industries as well as domestic aviation.

The post As UN action on ship emissions falls short, attention turns to regions appeared first on Climate Home News.

Countries approved the proposal during an environmental committee meeting of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) – the UN body responsible for international shipping – on Friday.

The decision came several days after countries attending the IMO meeting agreed to a controversial package of energy efficiency measures. Campaigners say both measures fall far short of both the IMO and Paris Agreement goals to reduce emissions and limit global warming.

Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the US proposed the ban to protect the fragile Arctic region from oil spills.

HFO has been banned in Antarctic waters since 2011, but plans for similar restrictions in the Arctic have been met with resistance, mainly from Russia. Opponents inserted a host of exemptions and waivers that weakened the rule.

“What was approved today allows ships to continue using HFO in the Arctic until July 2029,” Bryan Comer, senior marine researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), told Climate Home News.

“Unfortunately IMO member states decided to delay implementation until July 2024, and to forge ahead with a regulation that actually guarantees that ships can use HFO in the Arctic for the rest of the decade, rather than banning it,” said Comer.

Russia resists tougher climate targets in dash for Arctic gas

If the newly approved ban had been in place in 2019, around 75% of ships running on HFO would have been allowed to continue using the fuel in the Arctic, according to a study published by the ICCT in September.

Between 2015-2019, HFO use increased by 75%, according to the ICCT study. If the fleet continues to grow, the numbers of oil tankers and bulk carriers that qualify for an exemption would increase “and the effectiveness of the ban would be further eroded,” Comer and his co-authors warned. 

“The IMO have chosen to kick the can 10 years down the road,” John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition and senior policy advisor at Seas at Risk, told Climate Home. 

“They are good at creating the impression that they are doing something, but when you look closely, you discover that it is not going to change for years,” he said. 

In a speech to meeting attendees, Maggs stressed that it was misleading to refer to the new policy as a ban.

“It will inevitably cause widespread confusion, with the wider world assuming that a ‘ban’ stops HFO being used in the Arctic when actually in the mouth of the IMO it only means a modest and likely temporary reduction in its use for the first ten years,” he said. 

Anger as UN body approves deal that allows ship emissions to rise to 2030

“There are so many caveats in the ban, it is basically meaningless,” Dr Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, which campaigns to ban HFO in the Arctic, told Climate Home News. 

All ships with a protected fuel tank located inside the double hull are automatically exempt and any bearing the flag of one of the five Arctic coastal states can apply for a waiver, Prior said.

In a concession to Russia, the IMO allowed Arctic coastal nations to apply for a waiver when operating in their own waters. Russia argued that a complete ban would “negatively impact the local communities and industries of the region” who rely on ships to receive food, fuel and goods. In 2019, 366 ships would have been eligible for a waiver, including 325 bearing Russian flags, according to the ICCT.

The regulation does not include any concrete measures to tackle black carbon pollution, said Prior. When burned, HFO emits black carbon – a pollutant that absorbs sunlight and traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. It will only lead to a 5% reduction in black carbon emissions, according to the ICCT study. 

Oil spills pose another serious environmental concern. If HFO ends up in the water, it is extremely difficult to clean up. “HFO is very heavy and forms an emulsion in water – you end up with 10 times the volume,” said Prior. 

“The IMO is treading water: delaying action will not make the climate emergency magically disappear,” said Greenpeace oceans campaigner Veronica Frank. “In a year where a global pandemic made us question our relationship with the natural world and a massive oil spill has turned into the worst environmental disaster in Mauritius, what further evidence does the International Maritime Organisation need to move the shipping sector away from fossil fuels?”

The post UN shipping body approves Arctic heavy fuel oil ‘ban’, delayed for a decade appeared first on Climate Home News.

The deal, which was designed to curb the sector’s carbon footprint, will instead hand out ships a free pass to pollute for the next decade, campaigners warn.

Nations approved the proposal during a meeting of the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) environment committee on Tuesday. Under IMO rules, it will take around two years for the agreement to come into force.

The package of short-term technical and operational measures which includes reducing vessels’ engine power and the introduction of ship-level carbon intensity targets, will only shave off 1% of the sector’s emissions growth by 2030, according to research by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

Under business as usual, annual emissions from shipping are forecast to grow 15% by 2030. With the newly approved measures, the projection is 14% growth.

Ships to get free pass on emissions until 2030, under compromise proposal

Bryan Comer, senior marine researcher at the ICCT and co-author of the study, told Climate Home News that to meet the IMO’s own target of reducing global emissions from shipping by at least 50% by 2050 from 2008 level, emissions should decrease by at least 15% by 2030.

And carbon-cutting efforts would need to toughen to 70% of emissions reductions by 2030 if the sector is to align with limiting global heating to 1.5C — the most ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement.

“Clearly, the IMO will need to take additional actions, rapidly to get on track,” he said.

Tuvalu, the Solomon Island and the Marshall Islands were the only countries to explicitly reject the proposal in what campaigners described as contentious and “extremely toxic negotiations”.

Albon Ishoda, the Marshall Islands’ ambassador to Fiji and head of the IMO delegation, described the package as “incapable of achieving our long-term climate goals in the shipping industry”.

The world is moving to #NetZero but the global shipping sector seems to go in the other direction. I call on .@IMOhq delegates to veto the J/5.rev1 proposal and stand on the right side of history #CleanShipping #ClimateActionNow

— Laurence Tubiana (@LaurenceTubiana) November 16, 2020

In a rare intervention, Laurence Tubiana, an architect of the Paris Agreement, urged IMO delegates to veto the proposal and “stand on the right side of history”.

Japan, China, Nigeria, Philippines, Mexico, Cyprus were among those to support the deal. European nations also backed the proposal despite some expressing disappointment at the low level of ambition. Canada reportedly supported the package “as a first step” but admitted it did not align with the IMO’s long term climate ambition.

Russia resists tougher climate targets in dash for Arctic gas

Green groups have accused nations of approving a deal that is inconsistent with the Paris goals. Although international shipping, like aviation, is not explicitly regulated by the Paris accord, campaigners say the sector needs to align to global efforts to curb emissions “well below 2C” and strive towards 1.5C.

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found global carbon dioxide emissions needed to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 for a chance of keeping temperature rise to 1.5C.

John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition and senior policy advisor at Seas At Risk, said: “As scientists are telling us we have less than 10 years to stop our headlong rush to climate catastrophe, the IMO has decided that emissions can keep on growing for 10 years at least. Their complacency is breath-taking. Our thoughts are with the most vulnerable who will pay the highest price for this act of extreme folly.”

In a statement, NGO Transport & Environment described the IMO deal as an “abandonment of any effort to tackle climate change in the short term” and accused countries that supported it of having “lost any moral ground to criticise regions or nations trying to tackle shipping emissions”.

The agreement combines proposals put forward by Japan, Denmark, Germany and France.

The first part of the deal requires ships to reduce their engine power to improve energy efficiency from 2023. In practice, this will have little bearing on operations and lead to “paper improvements” rather than real emissions reductions, Faïg Abbasov, shipping director at Transport & Environment, told Climate Home News.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

From 2026, ships will have to comply with mandatory carbon intensity targets which can be met through speed reduction or the use of alternative fuels for example. Compliance will be monitored in a three-year cycle, with ships only needing to meet the standard one year in three.

“It’s nonsense,” said Abbasov, adding there was little prospect of enforcement for ships that failed to comply to the target three years in a row.

Abbasov said the negotiations had been so difficult no country would want to re-open negotiations any time soon.  “The EU has given up on this… Europe signed up for a deal because it could not bear having no deal,” he said.

Instead, nations would keep their political capital to negotiate a global carbon pricing mechanism for the shipping industry in the medium term — a measure backed by a number of progressive nations, including the Marshall Islands.

Transport & Environment is urging governments to take national and regional action to curb the sector’s emissions, such as setting carbon intensity regulations for ships calling at their ports and creating low- and zero-emission priority shipping corridors.

It called on the EU to include emissions from shipping in its carbon markets and mandate the use of alternative fuels and energy saving technologies. “Across the world nations must take action on maritime emissions where the UN agency has utterly failed,” said Abbasov.

The post Anger as UN body approves deal that allows ship emissions to rise to 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Japan, China, South Korea, Norway and several EU member states are among 14 countries to agree on a package of energy efficiency measures for existing ships, ahead of next week’s IMO environmental committee meeting. The International Chamber of Shipping also backs the submission.

In the proposal, seen by Climate Home, they suggest imposing a combination of mandatory short-term technical and operational measures on the world’s 60,000 vessels, from reducing engine power to introducing ship-level carbon intensity targets. These measures would not be enforced until 2030 – a decade too late, green groups say.

Bryan Comer, a senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation, told Climate Home that the proposal ignores scientific and technical recommendations made by climate campaigners. “What’s on the table now may not even be enough to achieve the IMO’s minimum 2030 target. It’s certainly not Paris-aligned,” said Comer. 

“Every year that we allow shipping emissions to go up, it is eating up more of the carbon budget. More drastic actions will need to be taken later,” Comer said.

EU considers crackdown on methane leaks from imported oil and gas

The proposal is modelled on Japan’s Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) which would impose energy efficiency targets on existing ships based on their type and size, and is supported by Norway, Greece and Panama. 

Limiting engine power to reduce emissions is the easiest way for ships to comply with EEXI, according to a report by the ICCT. EEXI would only make ‘a small contribution’ to the IMO’s climate goals and reduce CO2 emissions from the existing fleet by just 0.8-1.6% by 2030, the ICCT concluded. 

In the new IMO proposal, the countries suggest combining EEXI with other operational measures, including a carbon intensity indicator, proposed by Denmark, Germany and France, which would set individual targets for every ship. 

Campaigners describe it as a compromise, which lacks urgency and commitment to address the scale of the problem. International shipping produces around one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, accounting for 3% of annual global emissions. Without further action, ship emissions in 2050 are expected to reach 90-130% of 2008 levels. 

Faig Abbasov, shipping programme director at Brussels-based think-tank Transport & Environment, told Climate Home that many of the measures, including limiting engine power, are “empty shell” pledges. “Ships aren’t using their engine power to the maximum anyway,” he said. 

“The measures are voluntary for the next decade. There is no reason for member states to go beyond what the regulation says. They will just wait until then,” Abbasov said.

Major ship emissions study flags a bigger role for governments

The IMO has set the target of cutting CO2 emissions from international shipping by at least 50% by 2050, compared to 2008 levels, with carbon intensity reduced 40% by 2030. When the IMO announced these targets in 2018, it said it was  pursuing “a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals.” But experts say the IMO targets are not in line with the strongest Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to 1.5C. “This requires full decarbonisation by 2050,” said Abbasov.

“Leaving the efficiency of ships unregulated for another decade, the clear and intended result of this proposal, is certain to allow shipping’s huge 1 billion tonnes of annual GHG emissions to keep rising for the next 10 years and beyond,” said Kate Young, a campaigner for Generation Climate Europe, the largest coalition of youth-led NGOs in Europe.

The IMO’s 2018 strategy said it would prioritise short-term measures that achieved emissions reductions before 2023.

“The countries trying to push enforcement back until 2030, and for some ships only, are simply hoping no-one will notice they are removing all the ambitious bits of a major international climate agreement reached by over 100 countries just two years ago,” Young said. 

The proposal came a few days after the EU Parliament voted to include maritime CO2 emissions in the EU carbon market from 2022, following criticism that shipping is the only sector to not face emissions reduction targets. The decision will force shipowners to buy carbon permits to cover emissions during voyages in Europe or international voyages which start or finish at a European port. 

The EU decision could force the IMO to ramp up its climate ambition, campaigners say. “By going first, the EU is putting pressure on the IMO to act,” Abbasov said.

The post Ships to get free pass on emissions until 2030, under compromise proposal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Under draft plans being negotiated at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) – the UN body responsible for international shipping – restrictions on heavy fuel oil (HFO), a dirty fuel which propels most of marine transport, would come into effect in July 2024.

But a host of exemptions and waivers would allow most ships using and carrying HFO to continue to pollute Arctic waters until 2029.

“That is much too long to wait to take action to protect the Arctic,” Bryan Comer, senior marine research at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), told Climate Home News.

In a study published on Thursday by ICCT, Comer and his co-authors estimated that if the draft ban had been in place in 2019, around three-quarters of the fleet using HFO would have still been allowed to carry and use the fuel in the Arctic.

As the Arctic fleet grows, so will the number of ships that qualify for an exemption, “and the effectiveness of the ban would be further eroded,” the study’s authors warned.

For the Clean Arctic Alliance, which campaigns to ban HFO use in the Arctic, the proposal will allow “business as usual for most shipping operators in the region, and could fuel a race towards lower safety standards”.

Mauritius oil spill compensation could be limited by maritime law technicality

When burned, HFO emits black carbon, a short-lived pollutant that absorbs sunlight and traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. The Arctic, which is already warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, is particularly sensitive to these emissions.

Burning and carrying HFO has been banned in Antarctic waters since 2011, but plans for similar restrictions in the resource-rich Arctic have met with resistance. Russia, which could benefit from the opening of more shipping routes in the region as Arctic sea ice melts, is one of the most vocal opponents.

In the absence of regulation, HFO use in the Arctic is rapidly increasing. Between 2015 and 2019, its use by oil tankers rocketed by 300%, according to the ICCT.

Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the US proposed to ban the fuel in the Arctic arguing that a single spill “could have devastating and lasting effects on fragile Arctic marine and coastal environments”.

But Russia argued a ban would “negatively impact the local communities and industries of the region” which depend on ships to bring fuel, food and goods to remote areas and that the “potential benefits [of the ban]… remain unclear” when considering national efforts to reduce the risk of oil spills.

Ship emissions: major study flags a bigger role for governments

A watered down version of the proposal is up for consideration at the next meeting of the IMO’s environmental protection committee in November. That is the last chance for delegates to make significant changes to the draft.

Campaigners argue the benefits for communities and the environment of avoiding an HFO spill in the Arctic outweigh small increases in costs for switching to cleaner fuels, which should be borne by states.

“The danger of an Arctic HFO spill is the combination of knowing its major impacts while not knowing how to clean it up,” Ilan Kelman, professor of disasters and health, at University College London and at the University of Agder, Norway, told CHN in an email.

“We do not have sufficient techniques or technologies for fully recovering released HFO or cleaning up its damage efficiently. We do not even have a detailed understanding of HFO’s behaviour and persistence in the wide ranges of Arctic temperatures and wave conditions. The possible environmental harm from an HFO spill is immense with limited options for averting this destruction,” he said.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

And yet, to bring Russia onside, waivers were introduced for Arctic coastal nations’ ships operating in their own waters. In 2019, this would have made 366 ships eligible for a waiver – including 325 Russian-flagged vessels, according to the ICCT.

“Not all of these ships are re-supplying Arctic communities. Most of them are transporting resources extracted from the Arctic,” Comer told CHN.

Waivers came on top of exemptions, including for recently built ships with fuel tanks designed to prevent spills. Most of the largest oil tankers, built after August 2010 and operating in the Arctic – many of which transport Russian oil  – already meet exemption criteria under the current proposal, Comer said.

The research found that had the draft ban applied in 2019, it would have reduced the carriage of HFO by only 30%, its use by 16% and black carbon emissions by 5%. Doing away with exemptions and limiting waivers would have reduced HFO use by 75% and cut black carbon emissions by more than a fifth.

Most new bulk carriers and oil tankers joining the Arctic fleet will likely join the exemption list and be allowed to use and carry heavy fuel oil until 2029, Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, told CHN.

“This is unacceptable,” she said. “If exemptions and waivers are included than the reality will be that little will change when the ban comes into effect in the middle of 2024.”

“In order to provide the Arctic with the protection so desperately needed, the Clean Arctic Alliance is calling for the draft Arctic ban regulation to be strengthened with no exemptions and no waivers.”

The post Loopholes in Arctic heavy fuel oil ban defer action to the end of the decade appeared first on Climate Home News.

On 25 July, Japanese-owned bulk carrier MV Wakashio ran aground on a coral reef off the coast of Mauritius, leaking up to 1,000 tonnes of heavy oil into a pristine lagoon.

Its location on the edge of protected fragile marine ecosystems and a wetland of international importance made the spill one of the worst environmental disasters ever to hit the western Indian Ocean.

Yet because the oil came from a ship designed to transport solid cargo, Mauritius could be eligible for less than 2% of the maximum compensation available when an oil tanker is wrecked. The compensation claim will be decided by the courts in Mauritius once the full impact of the spill has been assessed.

On Wednesday, dolphins washed up on Mauritius’ white-sand beaches and died. The pollution has dashed hopes of reviving the fishing and tourism industries from the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic.

“It’s discouraging. It really has affected everything,” Yuvan Beejadhur, a former blue economy expert at the World Bank and a coordinator of citizen movements in Mauritius, told Climate Home News.

Guterres tells India coal business ‘going up in smoke’ as investors back clean tech

Earlier this month, shipping company Nagashiki, which operated the vessel, confirmed that Mauritius was seeking compensation for the spill.

In a statement, Nagashiki director Yoshiaki Nagare, apologised for the incident and said the company was “aware of the responsibility of the parties concerned and intended to respond in good faith to damages in accordance with applicable law”.

Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul, Mauritius’ permanent representative to the UN, told CHN the country had received “an enormous amount of goodwill” from the Japanese ship owners and the international community, with around 60 experts helping the island’s authorities to assess the long-term impact of the spill.

However, securing “fair” compensation could be challenging, according to Jason Chuah, professor of commercial and maritime law at City University’s Law School, in London, UK.

Had the MV Wakashio been an oil tanker, Mauritius would have been eligible for up to $1 billion in compensation under maritime law, he wrote in a blog post. Instead, because it is a bulk carrier, compensation could be capped much lower and Mauritius may be entitled to a maximum of $18 million.

The difference is based on the assumption bulk carriers, which carry solid cargoes like grain or coal, have lower pollution potential than tankers.

“But try telling that to the people whose livelihoods have been devastated by 1,000 tonnes of oil spilled,” said Chuah, of City University.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Ships have got bigger since those rules were written and carry more fuel, so even bulk carriers can cause significant spills, explained Regina Asariotis, a maritime lawyer at Unctad, the UN body dealing with trade and development issues.

Ambassador Koonjul said the international community should reconsider the legal framework and align regulations for both tankers and bunkers “to make sure that more than adequate compensation is given to any oil spill”. “Because an oil spill is an oil spill, whether it is caused by a bunker or a tanker,” he said. “We had never expected how huge this kind of spill could be.”

He added: “Tourism and preserving nature is all we have as resources and if these are damaged then obviously it’s going to be extremely bad for us. It is high time for small islands to look into how to better prepare ourselves to this kind of damage.”

The UN has expressed its intention to set up a recovery fund to support the Mauritian government and provide financial relief to fishermen who have lost their income.

Although the full cost of clean-up and extent of the environmental, social and economic impact of the spill will take a long time to establish, campaigners fear the company responsible will get off lightly.

“The spill has impacted our livelihoods and our reputation as being a clean island is totally tarnished. These are costs that need to be evaluated,” said Beejadhur.

“International maritime law favours vessels, it does not favour the communities that rely on corals and lagoons to survive. It may be hard to get compensation to the scale that we need.”

Prospect of snap election reanimates Canada’s carbon tax battle

Under international law, compensation for oil spills are capped regardless of the extent of the damage. That is unless a court can demonstrate it resulted from a deliberate act or omission by the shipowner, “committed with the intent to cause such loss” – a high degree of culpability that is difficult to prove.

The fallback is the 2001 Bunker Convention, which imposes a strict liability on shipowners in the event of a spill. However, the amount of compensation that can be paid is capped by a separate legal framework and dependent on the size of the ship.

Had Mauritius ratified a protocol which updates the cap for compensation, the island could have received up to $65 million, according to some estimates — still far below the sums available from an oil tanker wreck. Ambassador Koonjul told CHN Mauritius was taking the necessary measures to ratify the protocol.

“By limiting the liability we are allowing companies to externalise the damage to the people that they have harmed rather than taking full responsibility… we need to rethink whether it’s consistent with international environmental law,” Alex Lenferna, a climate justice advocate for 350Africa, whose family originated in Mauritius, told CHN.

If polluting doesn’t come at an expensive cost, then the fossil fuel industry has every reason to “be around for much  longer,” he added.

The post Mauritius oil spill compensation could be limited by maritime law technicality appeared first on Climate Home News.

That was revealed on Tuesday in a study commissioned by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the first comprehensive analysis of ship emissions worldwide since 2014.

While the coronavirus pandemic is temporarily slowing the flow of cargo and savaging the cruise industry, emissions are expected to rebound in the longer term. By 2050, ship emissions are forecast to reach 90-130% of 2008 levels, in the absence of further action.

“We still need to reduce emissions and introduce more stringent regulations over the next decade,” Elena Hauerhof, principal consultant at Umas, which led the inventory work for the study, told Climate Home News. “We are still not aligned with the Paris Agreement targets yet.”

Covid-hit hajj guts Saudi plans to reduce reliance on oil revenues

The mammoth study, compiled over a year by nine research organisations in six countries, shows the IMO has its work cut out.

Member states agreed in 2018 to halve shipping emissions by 2050 – a target that did not satisfy climate advocates calling for full decarbonisation. Talks on measures to meet the goal, already proceeding slowly, have been delayed due to Covid-19.

The study also points to a bigger role for national governments. Domestic voyages generated 30% of ship emissions, twice as high as previously estimated, following the latest accounting methods.

That means countries could make a significant impact by bringing in stricter emissions controls on ships travelling between ports in their borders, without waiting for consensus at the IMO.

Tristan Smith, director of Umas, said in a statement climate policymakers had too often ignored shipping. “Hopefully this study will encourage countries to look again, and bring shipping firmly into their national [greenhouse gas] policy, hydrogen strategies and action,” he said.

Many aspiring climate leaders are seeking to develop “hydrogen economies”. The idea is to make the gas with renewable electricity and use it as a clean-burning fuel for industrial applications or transport.

EU to make big push for hydrogen, despite green concerns and infrastructure gaps

There were also new findings on the importance of non-CO2 climate pollutants.

Black carbon accounts for 7% of shipping’s climate impact, the study estimated, but has evaded regulation as negotiators cannot agree on how to measure it.

Methane emissions, while less than 1% of total greenhouse gases, surged 151% in the period studied. These mainly come from carriers of liquefied natural gas (LNG), using some of the cargo to fuel the ship, by way of leaky engines.

“We were really quite stunned at the massive increase in methane emissions from ships,” said Bryan Comer, senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), which led on work around non-CO2 pollutants.

In a paper published in January, the ICCT found the most popular type of LNG-fuelled engine was also the leakiest. The preferred technology had high methane emissions, which are not regulated by the IMO, and low nitrogen oxide emissions, which are.

LNG has been touted as a cleaner alternative to traditional bunker fuels, although analysis by Umas suggests it can deliver only modest emissions savings.

Campaigners are calling on the IMO to add methane standards to the energy efficiency regulations for new ships.

“It is obvious that if LNG is going to continue to be used, [the IMO] needs to get a handle on the ‘methane slip’ problem from the engines,” said Comer.

The post Major ship emissions study flags a bigger role for governments appeared first on Climate Home News.

As industrial production slows down and planes are grounded, the bust to the global economy is seeing global emissions fall. But the pollution respite for the planet could be short-lived.

Writing in Climate Home News, Andrew Norton, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) warned that “what counts in terms of meaningful action to address the climate crisis is long-term structural change”.

“If handled badly,” he warns, “the pandemic could suck the energy out of public action and public policy as prosperity declines”.

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency said the outbreak could spell a slowdown in the clean energy transition if governments fail to use green investments to bolster economic growth.

While immediate resources and attention to tackle the virus are necessary, the pandemic will put governments’ focus on climate action to the test.

Postponed

The virus’ impact on the global climate and biodiversity agenda this year is already being felt, with a host of meetings being cancelled or postponed.

UN Climate Change has announced it won’t hold any physical meetings until the end of April and Africa Climate Week has been postponed.

International negotiations on an ocean treaty to create marine protected areas in the high seas have been postponed – potentially giving countries extra time to break the talks’ deadlock.

And in London, the International Maritime Organisation has put off key talks on reducing shipping emissions.

The delays are putting increasing pressure on an already tight timetable ahead of a major biodiversity summit in China in October and the UN climate talks in Glasgow in November, as meetings risk being pushed back into the second half of the year.

The pandemic may have made the steep climb the world faces to ramp up climate ambition ahead of Cop26 steeper still.

Testing Paris

And while expectations for Cop26 are building up, the legal requirements for countries to ratchet-up their climate plans this year need attention.

Alister Doyle has taken a close look at the decision texts spelling out what countries need to do this year.

By the riverside 

In Ethiopia’s capital, a major project to clean up Addis Ababa’s riversides has opened opportunities to boost the city’s green development.

But as Dagim Terefe found out, the $900 million plan has a heavy human cost, with people being displaced and their shelters demolished, at times “without warning”, to give way to the development. Read his report here.

Rebound

In Montreal, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) council is meeting to decide which carbon offset schemes airlines will be able to use to offset their emissions from January 2021.

Under UN plans, Icao members have agreed to make all growth in international flights after 2020 carbon neutral compared with a baseline of average emissions for 2019 and 2020. With flights grounded because of the virus, that average is likely to go down.

If traffic rebounds in coming years, growth from the baseline will be bigger than previously expected, forcing airlines to do more to offset their emissions growth.

Campaigners have expressed concerns Icao could come under pressure to lessen airlines’ financial hardship. One to watch.

This week’s top stories

• Coronavirus may toughen airlines’ goals for curbing emissions in 2020s
• Addis Ababa riverside project gives priority to development over residents
• Coronavirus: IMO postpones key meeting on reducing shipping emissions
• Will governments pass the first test of the Paris climate agreement in 2020?
• Coronavirus: UN delays talks on global ocean biodiversity treaty
• Coronavirus delays global efforts for climate and biodiversity action

And in climate conversations

• Coronavirus and climate change are two crises that need humanity to unite
• An ambitious year for climate is a big year for women’s empowerment
• Power structures over gender make women more vulnerable to climate change

The post Putting the brakes on – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

The UN body responsible for global shipping, which is based in London, also closed its headquarters to staff and visitors on Thursday and Friday as a precautionary measure.

The IMO put off talks by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which had been due to meet in London from 30 March to 3 April. The MEPC is reviewing proposals to improve the energy efficiency of ships.

A total of five IMO meetings have now been cancelled, including a working group on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships from 23-27 March.

The rescheduling of the meetings will be announced “in good time for delegates to make appropriate arrangements,” the IMO said.

In a statement, it cited “the rapid increase of cases worldwide and the continuing difficulties for some delegates from IMO member states travelling from abroad to attend IMO meetings” and WHO’s announcement as reasons for the decision.

Coronavirus: UN delays talks on global ocean biodiversity treaty

Countries members to the IMO have agreed to reduce carbon emissions from global shipping by 40% from 2008 levels by 2030 and at least halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The IMO is working to finalise measures to support its CO2 intensity reduction goal this year. The MEPC meeting was due to review a number of short-term measures to cut carbon emissions.

A controversial proposal by Japan to fit ships with engine power limitation devices to indirectly reduce speed and fuel use was on the agenda for review.

Research by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) has shown the proposal will not directly have an impact of carbon emissions because ships are already operating slower than the proposal’s implied limit.

Faig Abbasov, the shipping programme manager at NGO Transport & Environment, told Climate Home News it was too early to predict the impacts on the negotiations but that much depended on when the meeting would be able to take place.

“Timing matters because if the IMO reaches an agreement on stringent reduction measures, it will then need six months to be adopted followed by 10+6 months to go through the tacit acceptance process,” he said.

“In that sense, any delay in the approval of measures that could have happened at the MEPC meeting would have implications on that timeline as well.”

Coronavirus delays global efforts for climate and biodiversity action

This is the latest global climate meeting to be affected by the spread of the virus, also known as Covid-19.

On Wednesday, the UN General Assembly agreed to postpone a key meeting when countries were due to finalise a global ocean treaty that would enable the creation of marine protected areas in the high seas.

UN Climate Change has also cancelled or postponed all physical meetings until the end of April.

The spread of the virus is putting increasing pressure on the climate and biodiversity timetable this year, with a number of high-level meetings likely pushed back to the summer and the second half of the year.

The post Coronavirus: IMO postpones key meeting on reducing shipping emissions appeared first on Climate Home News.

A study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), an independent research group, found that CO2 intensity of international shipping had already been reduced by 30% from 2008 levels in 2018.

That year, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) set a 40% reduction target by 2030.

The paper’s authors suggested widespread “slow-steaming” – a practice that reduces ship’s operational speed and fuel use by not using the engine at full power – was behind the drop in CO2 intensity.

Overcapacity in ship transport supply has caused ship speed to drop by 20% between 2008 and 2015, according to the ICCT.

“This suggests that the 2030 goal may be tightened when International Maritime Organisation (IMO) revises the strategy in 2023,” the report noted.

Dan Rutherford, the ICCT’s programme director for marine and aviation and one of the study’s authors, told Climate Home News the findings pointed “to the need for the IMO to adapt a more stringent 2030 target”.

The report added that ship speeds could rebound by 2030, depending on factors such as the state of global trade, oil prices and freight rates.

The findings were submitted to the IMO on Monday ahead of a round of talks at the end of March.

Marshall Islands, Suriname, Norway upgrade climate plans before Cop26

In 2018, the shipping sector committed to reduce its emissions by at least 50% from 2008 levels by 2050, with efforts to curb carbon intensity of international shipping by 70% by 2050.

International shipping accounts for 2-3% of global emissions but, like aviation, the sector’s emissions are not covered by the Paris Agreement.

Projections by CE Delft for the IMO found that shipping emissions could increase up to 120% by 2050 and, under a business as usual scenario, the sector could account for 10% of global emissions by mid-century.

The IMO is working to finalise measures to support its CO2 intensity reduction goals this year.

Proposals include submissions backed by France and Greece for a speed limit on tankers and bulk carriers. Norway and Japan have also proposed plans that would allow companies to decide how to meet energy efficiency targets by using cleaner fuel or more efficient vessels.

Among Japan’s proposals is a plan to fit ships with engine power limitation devices to indirectly reduce speed and fuel use.

Japan is the world’s third largest ship-owning country and an influential voice inside the IMO. Hideaki Saito, of Japan, chairs the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) – the committee which deals with climate change and emissions reduction issues.

The ICCT study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using engine power limitation to reduce fuel use and CO2 emissions. It concluded that mandatory engine power limitations measures “will not directly reduce fuel use and CO2 emissions” because ships are already operating slower than the proposal’s implied limit.

Engine power limitations measures “would need to be aggressive in order to contribute to the IMO’s climate goals,” the report said.

Campaigners urge African Union to stop fossil fuel proliferation on continent

Research found that limiting engine power by 30% or less would have a negligible impact on emissions and would deliver theoretical on-paper emissions reductions, rather than real-world cuts, Rutherford told CHN.

Only by limiting engine power by more than 50% would the measure lead to more meaningful CO2 reductions, the report said. Halving engine power would reduce emissions of existing fleets of about 3% compared with business as usual, taking into account 2018 speed and different types of ships.

Increasing that number to 60%, would reduce emissions of the global fleet by about 6%, according to the ICCT. However, such reduction of engine power would “begin affecting significant numbers of [ship’s] operational hours” the study noted.

In contrast, research funded by the EU Commission found restricting ship speed by 20% below 2012 levels could achieve up to 34% of CO2 emissions reduction by 2030.

John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition and senior policy advisor at Seas at Risk, accused Japan of leading a “ignore-the-science coalition”.

“In a technical-sounding debate about ‘short-term measures’, Japan is proposing CO2 rules that are weak, opaque, and will fail to actually cut emissions,” he said.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

Across the sector, some companies and shipping associations have shown appetite for more ambitious climate targets.

In reflections published at the start of the year, Bimco, one of the world’s largest shipping association representing ship owners, said “substantial gains” in emissions reduction had been made since 2008.

“It is, therefore, not a question of if the shipping industry will meet the IMO 2030 objective of achieving 40% carbon efficiency improvements over 2008, but about what the target should be increased to in 2023 when the IMO adopts its final greenhouse gas reduction strategy,” it said.

Bimco was also part of a coalition of shipping association that proposed the creation of an emissions reduction research and development programme funded via a mandatory contribution of £2 per tonne of marine fuel oil purchased for consumption by ships – a move campaigners said fell far short of the need to cut emissions.

Maersk, the world’s largest container shipping company, has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality in its operations by 2050 and to have developed commercially viable carbon neutral vessels by 2030.

The post Shipping could raise ambition of 2030 climate target, study shows appeared first on Climate Home News.

The UN Biodiversity summit, due to take place in Kunming in October, is a critical moment for countries to agree on a global framework to halt the destruction of the planet’s plants and wildlife.

But the coronavirus outbreak has forced UN agencies to relocate preparatory talks due to take place next month in Kunming to the offices of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Rome, Italy.

The move came after the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a “public health emergency of international concern” because of the rapid spread of the virus. More than 200 people in China have died since the beginning of the epidemic and nearly 10,000 cases have now been reported.

Meanwhile, travel restrictions to and from China have intensified in recent days. On Thursday, the Italian government announced it was suspending all flights between Italy and China. Travel restrictions could make it more difficult for Chinese participants to attend the meeting.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) said it was committed to ensure preparations for the October summit “proceed in a timely and effective manner”.

Spawning crisis

The desert locusts swarm in the Horn of Africa could provoke a humanitarian crisis, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned.

The insects are ravaging the East African region in the worst outbreak in decades and is causing “an unprecedented threat to food security and livelihoods,” the UN agency has said.

Urgent calls for funding to stop the outbreak have been issued as the locusts have started laying eggs and the FAO fears new swarms could form in Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.

Fuel blunder

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has come under pressure to regulate new shipping fuels introduced at the start of the year to reduce sulphur levels, which could be accelerating warming in the Arctic.

Research shows the new fuel blends could be causing a surge in black carbon emissions – a short-lived but potent pollutant that traps heat in the atmosphere and contributes to warming.

The fuels which were designed to improve air quality and protect human health could be increasing the shipping’s sector climate impact, especially in the Arctic region.

Now campaigners are asking tough questions about who knew what and when about the new fuels’ potential impacts on emissions. “It’s hard to see how experts in marine fuels like yourselves could not have been aware” of the risks, they said.

Carbon source

A new study found that indigenous and protected land in the Amazon emit far less carbon dioxide than the rest of the rainforest.

The study is the first to comprehensively include carbon losses from forest degradation (such as illegal logging and mining, floods and droughts), deforestation and forest growth and provides a detailed carbon account of the changing land use.

It prompted calls for greater support for indigenous land rights as a cost-effective way to limit climate change. Jocelyn Timperley reports.

Ratification

10 countries still haven’t ratified the Paris Agreement. Turkey and four large oil exporting countries, including Iran, Iraq, Angola and Libya, have not formally endorsed the agreement. Alister Doyle takes a look at who makes the list.

Quick hits

• UN relocates biodiversity talks to Italy from China after coronavirus emergency
• UN biodiversity meeting in China under review following coronavirus outbreak
• Locusts lay eggs as plague worsens in Horn of Africa, UN warns
• Indigenous lands, protected areas limit Amazon’s carbon emissions
• IMO under pressure to regulate new ship fuels over Arctic warming
• Which countries have not ratified the Paris climate agreement?

And in climate conversations

• UN ruling on climate refugees could be gamechanger for climate action

The post Coronavirus side effect – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

From 1 January this year, stricter sulphur levels for ships have come into force to reduce air pollution and human health impacts such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

Shipping companies and fuel providers have been using new blends of fuels to meet the sulphur guidelines. But instead, research suggested the new fuels could lead to an increase of the sector’s climate impacts.

A study conducted by Finland and Germany and submitted to the IMO found the new very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) used by ships contained more aromatic compounds which are causing a surge in black carbon emissions – a short-lived pollutant that strongly absorbs sunlight and traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

The new hybrid fuels resulted in a 10% to 85% increase in black carbon emissions compared to previously used heavy fuel oil, the study found. Black carbon is already estimated to represent up to 21% of shipping’s climate impact.

Is the shipping industry’s R&D climate fund a Trojan Horse?

“While black carbon stays in the atmosphere for only a few days or weeks, in that time, it traps 3200-times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, measured over a 20-year period,” Bryan Comer, a senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) told Climate Home News.

When black carbon settles on the Arctic, it reduces the reflectiveness of the snow and ice and generates heat, which accelerates melting. This makes the Arctic – which is already warming twice as fast as the rest of the world  – particularly sensitive to these emissions.

Global warming is melting Arctic sea ice and opening the region to more shipping, including a short-cut route between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

Now campaigners are asking the marine fuel organisations responsible for drawing up official guidance on the supply and use of the low-sulphur fuel blends, why the impact on black carbon emissions was not identified before the new fuels were put on the market.

In a letter sent to the 11 organisations that co-authored the joint industry guidance, the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of organisations campaigning for a ban on heavy fuel oil from Arctic shipping, demanded the authors to explain why action hadn’t been taken sooner.

“It’s hard to see how experts in marine fuels like yourselves could not have been aware of the elevated aromatics in these new fuels and of the link between aromatics in fuels and black carbon emissions, and we believe an explanation from industry and refiners is urgently needed,” the letter read.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance who wrote the letter, told Climate Home News: “If [the oil industry] know their product at all they would have realised there was a potential problem.”

The IMO’s sub-committee on pollution prevention and response is meeting next month and the issue of black carbon emissions and the use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic are on the agenda.

An IMO spokeswoman said the committee will have the opportunity to discuss the submission made by Finland and Germany and report back to its parent body, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which is meeting at the end of March.

CHN contacted seven of the 11 organisations recipients of the letter which have a formal consultative status at the IMO.

A spokesman for Ipieca, the global oil and gas industry association for advancing environmental and social performance, said the remit of the guidance provided to the shipping sector was “limited” and  focused on supporting ship managers with the “operational aspects of the transition” and “help ensure the safety of vessels and crews”.

He added the research by Finland Germany focused on fuel blends “most likely to be used in 2020” and that at this stage there was “no comprehensive overview available that documents the actual variability of fuel types and representative fuel quality on the market”.

This, he said, made it “too early to draw any valid and meaningful conclusions on the level of black carbon emissions” associated with the use of VLSFOs.

Today, shipping is taking responsibility for our role in the climate crisis

The International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) and the Royal Institute of Naval Architects declined to comment before the issue was addressed by the IMO in February.

The International Association of Classification Societies (Iacs), the International Bunker Industry Association (Ibia), the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) and the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology IMarEST did not immediately respond to CHN’s requests.

Prior said the response needed to focus on the Arctic and called for “immediate measures” to require ships in the Arctic – and eventually everywhere else in the world – to switch to higher-quality distillates fuels, which have lower sulphur levels and emit less black carbon.

More than half of all ships in the Arctic are already using distillates fuel, Prior said. “This is not an impossible ask and could happen very quickly. This issue needs to be taken serious by the IMO.”

Lucy Gilliam, a shipping campaigner at the NGO Transport & Environment, described the blunder “a failure of [the IMO’s] regulatory process”.

Gilliam called for countries parties to the IMO, such as the EU, to demand urgent action at the February meeting.

The shipping sector accounts for about 3% of global emissions annually. In 2018, countries parties to the IMO agreed to cut the sector’s emissions by 50% by 2050.

The post IMO under pressure to regulate new ship fuels over Arctic warming appeared first on Climate Home News.

On the face of it, this is a welcome addition to existing plans to clean up shipping. However, the timing and the public spin of the proposal left many wondering whether the IMRF is a Trojan Horse.

I hope that this is not the case because part of the industry seems to be genuine about the need for such a fund to accelerate the deployment of carbon-free fuels. Let me explain our worries.

In brief, the IMRF proposes to levy €0.6 ($0.7) on each tonne of CO2 that ships emit ($2 per tonne of fuel). Ostensibly, the goal is to generate about $5 billion in funds over the next 10 years. These resources would fund research and development (R&D) into carbon-free marine technologies that would help decarbonise the sector.

Comment: Today, shipping is taking responsibility for our role in the climate crisis

For pure R&D and pilot tests, this amount might arguably be adequate so long as the money is spent efficiently. Together with other funding streams, including the EU Innovation Fund, a possible future EU Maritime Climate Fund under the emissions trading system (ETS), private investments by the individual shipping companies and shipyards, the IMRF could be sufficient to develop and test new marine technologies.

In that respect, I welcome this proposal and the efforts of the parts of the industry that have genuine intentions in developing it.

And here is where the Trojan Horse enters the “battlefield”.

Firstly, certain voices within the industry seem to have taken the opportunity to spin this proposal as (a precursor of) a global market-based measure (MBM), a carbon pricing system, for shipping. MBMs intend to guide the industry towards environmentally sustainable technologies by making CO2 emissions increasingly expensive.

For example, EU sectors covered by its ETS, including power plants and airlines, pay around €25 ($28) per tonne of CO2 emitted. While in itself insufficient to nudge the maritime sector to carbon-free fuels, the EU carbon price is a whopping 40 times bigger than the IMRF carbon/fuel levy. In that context, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the IRMF is an MBM and that we should all lie back and expect miracles in the next 10 years.

Given such a mediocre starting point, expecting IMRF in the future to evolve into a proper carbon pricing mechanism would be akin to expecting a hen chick to evolve into a fully grown ostrich.

2019 second warmest year on record, ends hottest decade yet, says EU observatory

And that’s precisely where the second problem lies. Industry’s IMRF proposal comes in a particular political context.

A week before it was released, the new European Commission published a European Green Deal, a strategy paper laying out its plans for regulatory and policy actions to ensure that Europe becomes the first carbon-neutral continent by 2050.

As part of the Green Deal, the Commission committed to extend the EU ETS to cover international maritime transport and implement further measures to accelerate the uptake of zero-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen, by the sector.

EU shipping in the ETS would initially generate about €4 billion/year in revenues, while having a negligible impact on consumer prices, measured in less than a cent on a kilo of bananas shipped to Europe. Given that the shipping industry has long been resisting European measures on shipping, it is quite hard to shake off the feeling that the release of the IMRF was, in part, calculated by some to dissuade Europe from acting on maritime emissions.

Hear it from the horse’s mouth. Following the release of IMRF proposal, Simon Bennett, deputy secretary-general of the ICS, was quoted in Politico Europe as saying: “If you believe in a market-based mechanisms, the place to do that is at the IMO. […] This is a global problem and it’s only going to be solved at the global level.” [18 December 2019].

It is strikingly obvious that at least parts of the industry are keen to nip the EU ETS in the bud by giving the misguided promises that everything is under control at the IMO.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

This wouldn’t be the first time the industry is resorting to such a tactic. Every time Europeans lose their cool about the lack of IMO progress, industry has been quick in encouraging IMO to make some cosmetic progress and then shout from the rooftops that shipping’s global regulator is making ‘great’ progress on climate – if only to buy themselves more time.

It is good to be hopeful about global climate negotiations, but that does not mean being naive. IMO and other UN agencies, like Icao, are notorious in their appallingly poor track record in curbing the sector’s climate pollution. Relying solely on the IMO to solve shipping’s climate impacts is akin to relying on (mostly) coal development ministries and coal miners to eliminate coal-power plants.

Therefore, even though the industry’s IMRF proposal is a welcome news, it is not an emissions reduction measure and should not be treated as such. Most importantly, this should not stymie the EU in extending the ETS to cover the maritime sector as a matter of urgency.

The IMRF and EU ETS can actually function in parallel – the latter could even fund the former. There cannot be exclusivity in action against climate change.

The urgency of the crisis is daunting enough to justify efforts at all levels, by ports, national governments, regional and global actors. To suggest otherwise would only mean signing a death penalty to the planet.

Faig Abbasov is shipping programme manager at Transport & Environment, a Brussels-based NGO which campaigns for cleaner transport

The post Is the shipping industry’s R&D climate fund a Trojan Horse? appeared first on Climate Home News.

As an industry that is accountable to the UN via that International Maritime Organization (IMO) but not bound by country, the Paris Agreement notably did not account for the role of shipping in perpetuating the climate crisis.

This is perhaps part of the reason that the sector has been on the receiving end of plenty of criticism. Today, however, is the start of something new, something that will help to deliver the IMOs ambitious CO2 reduction goals. Today we’re announcing the creation of a $5 billion research-and-development fund whose ultimate aim is to bring about the full decarbonisation of the global shipping industry.

Many of the complaints levelled at global shipping have been justified. In fact, we concede that in the past we have been slow to respond to the threat of global heating: despite working hard to improve air quality and cut our carbon dioxide emissions, we have not done enough.

Cop25: What was achieved and where to next?

And though no reasonable person would recommend a reduction in global trade, which continues to underpin and promote peace and prosperity around the world, we do intend to play our part in addressing the climate crisis. We will match the ambitions of the rest of the world in meeting its carbon objectives. And we will take responsibility for our own contribution to the worsening health of the planet.

Today, we are submitting our proposals to the IMO. This is not a reaction to the intensifying climate crisis but a considered intervention, arrived at after months of discussion between international shipowner associations and ourselves. It is a bold plan and global shipping’s first-ever collaborative effort to solve a problem. But our goal is to play our part in addressing what is arguably the greatest challenge the world has ever faced. Boldness is precisely what is needed.

The tax-free shipping company that took control of a country’s UN mission

This is not a carbon tax. We have no desire to hinder or discriminate against developing economies. Nor do we wish to hold back or obstruct the development of equitable market-based solution. Rather, we are proposing an accountable, centralised, coordinated solution, funded by a transparent contribution of $2 per tonne of fuel bought by shipping companies worldwide, that will leave trade intact while allowing us to meet the lofty goals set by the IMO: to reduce the sector’s total greenhouse-gas emissions by 50% by 2050. What we are proposing is innovation.

To meet the 2050 target, we must improve the efficiency of global shipping by around 90%. But our intention is to accelerate the development of commercially viable zero-carbon ships by the early 2030s. This does not involve building giant sails, but developing new zero-carbon forms of technology and propulsion systems, such as green hydrogen and ammonia, fuel cells, batteries and synthetic fuels created with renewable energy sources.

These do not yet exist in a form that may be used by large commercial ships, especially those engaged in transoceanic voyages. But through the research and development the fund will enable, we can rapidly change this, and our success can become a clarion call to governments, nation-states, international organisations and private companies. We — the shipping community — are doing what needs to be done.

Shipping executive: ‘We have deliberately misled public on climate’

The fund can be established quickly. We have set out the details of a system for collecting fund contributions from shipowners, as well as for the governance of a coordinated R&D programme. If our plan is accepted by the IMO, it will form a non-governmental R&D organisation to manage the fund. The International Maritime Research and Development Board will be overseen by the IMO Member States, but crucially will include a partnership including industry to ensure that we adopt pragmatic innovation that can work in real life. 

This detailed proposal has been developed by the major international shipowner association which represent all sectors and trades and over 90% of the world merchant fleet. We will continue to show leadership. And we will be encouraging other stakeholders — the other links on the supply chain aside from shipowners — to involve themselves and help us to push the fund to $10 billion or higher. 

We must not leave it to others to carry the burden of addressing the climate crisis. Nor will we ask others to decide the future of maritime. We embrace our responsibility, and we ask the world’s governments to support our efforts and pay in to the fund.

Greta Thunberg is right to say that ‘creative accounting and clever PR’ often lie behind supposed commitments to sustainability, but our plans are transparent, and our regulator has teeth. Now we ask the wider shipping community for their blessing. Change on this scale is difficult and often daunting. But in this case, it could not be more necessary.

Guy Platten is the secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping

The post Today, shipping is taking responsibility for our role in the climate crisis appeared first on Climate Home News.

However much the current administration tries to unwind that progress, everyone now pretty much accepts that we don’t have to damage our kids’ health in order to secure our power supply – we simply have better options.

Less known is that the giant ships that carry 80% of the world’s trade are also giant polluters, and that the current administration is trying to prevent clean-up efforts in this sphere as well.

The type of fuel burned by ships at sea, heavy fuel oil of a maximum of 3.5% sulphur, has long since been illegal to burn in power stations in the developed world.

This dirty fuel means that shipping currently accounts for around 400,000 premature deaths from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, and around 14 million childhood asthma cases every year.

Shipping is finally playing catch-up on air pollution standards. Next year under the UN International Maritime Organisation’s 2020 sulphur cap, marine fuel sulphur content will be lowered to 0.5% globally. That’s still 50 times more sulphurous than the 10 parts per million of sulphur allowed in road fuel in the US, but still, it’s a start.

The development of these tougher fuel standards from 2005 onwards was supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

But even on these minimal steps to clean up the air for coastal communities, the Trump administration attempted some last-minute delay to the implementation, creating uncertainty about whether the standards would be implemented globally.

It seems the White House only backtracked when oil refinery lobby groups and Republican senators pointed out that cleaner fuel rules will economically benefit US fuel producers, not just public health.

Meanwhile the climate impact of shipping remains unsolved. At almost a gigatonne (1,000 million tonnes) a year, shipping’s climate pollution is comparable to all the coal plants in the US.

Here also Trump has reduced US diplomacy from an international leadership role, to a critical bystander.

After the change of administration, the US became isolated at IMO, and was one of only three countries that did not support the adoption of IMO’s Initial Strategy on Greenhouse Gases last year (the other two being Saudi Arabia and Brazil).

Nevertheless, the rest of the world (including China) went ahead last year and adopted this landmark deal setting emissions reduction targets for the global shipping sector.

Since then, the US has continued to slow-ball any attempt to agree to actual measures to meet these targets at IMO.

US will keep seat at climate talks after it leaves Paris deal

The irony is that even leaving to one side our obvious interests in having a stable climate system to live in, the US would hugely benefit economically from shipping decarbonisation.

The American Bureau of Shipping – an expert classification society that signs off on which maritime technologies are safe and ready to deploy, has endorsed the Getting to Zero coalition – which aims to commercialise full-size, zero carbon container ships on international trade routes within just 10 years.

According to the world’s largest shipping company Maersk, the most promising fuel types to reach carbon neutral shipping are ethanol/methanol produced from renewable sources, biomethane, and ammonia (as a carrier molecule for renewably generated hydrogen).

The US has amazing knowledge, expertise, and industry leaders in all of these fuel types, as well as the carbon capture technology needed to make synthetic fuels. We should be looking to build an export market for these companies within the shipping industry’s 300 million tonnes, $150-billion-plus annual fuel spend.

However all of these technologies would benefit from a clear, solid policy framework on shipping sector CO2 – otherwise it’s hard for investors to have confidence in the direction of travel of the industry.

EU plots climate deal with China

That policy framework is up for discussion at the next round of government talks at the International Maritime Organisation in London, happening this week, November 11-15.

The US should look at its own economic interests, and support substantive, transparent efficiency standards for all ships, as proposed by Denmark, Germany, Spain and others.

If the US continues to be blinded by ideological opposition to any discussion of the scientific reality of our climate, and practical steps to address the very real problems we face, it will just be sidelined again in these negotiations.

In that case, all we can say to the rest of the world is, wait until 2020, when hopefully the US will return to pro-active, ambitious engagement on climate, and the many other issues the world faces.

Heather Zichal served as US deputy assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change under the Barack Obama administration. 

The post Economic opportunity should see US get on board with shipping clean-up appeared first on Climate Home News.

The announcement came hours before the UN climate action summit convened by António Guterres got under way in New York.

Senior figures from the maritime, infrastructure, energy and finance sector, including shipping behemoth Maersk and oil company Shell, joined the so-called Getting to Zero Coalition.

They will seek to coordinate the launch of clean fuels and vessels while making sure that these are supported by adequate ports, finance and policy incentives.

The UN climate action summit – live

“Energy efficiency has been an important tool which has helped us reduce CO2 emissions per container with 41% over the last decade and position ourselves as a leader 10% ahead of the industry average,” Søren Skou, CEO of the world’s largest container ship operator Maersk, said

“However, efficiency measures can only keep shipping emissions stable, not eliminate them. To take the next big step change towards decarbonization of shipping, a shift in propulsion technologies or a shift to clean fuels is required which implies close collaboration from all parties. The coalition launched today is a crucial vehicle to make this collaboration happen.”

“The challenge around commercially viable zero emission vessels is not (primarily) a technological challenge,” spokesperson for the Global Maritime Forum, Torben Vollemund, wrote in an e-mail. “We can (and are) building engines that can burn zero emission fuels. We can produce zero emission fuels for instance based on biomass and hydrogen produced from renewable electricity or from natural gas combined with carbon capture and storage.”

“The challenge is a collective action challenge, since decarbonizing shipping is about a systemic transformation that is beyond the power of any single stakeholder and stakeholder group,” Vollemund said.

Vollemund also stressed the urgency to act, with ships entering the global fleet in 2030 still operating in 2050.

This “means we only have a decade to get commercially viable and scalable zero emission vessels and fuels in place – and we are not even close”.

Led by the Global Maritime Forum, Friends of the Ocean, and the World Economic Forum, the initiative seeks to make good on the UN International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) pledge to halve emissions from 2008 levels by 2050, with the view of phasing them out as soon as possible in the century.

Currently responsible for 2-3% of annual global emissions, the international shipping industry could see its emissions soar by up to 250% by 2050 in the absence of any action.

The post Maersk aims for zero emissions vessels by 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.

The 16-year-old Swedish activist, who has galvanised Europe’s youth to rise for the climate, will cross the pond from the UK to New York on a racing yacht to attend the climate action summit convened by UN chief António Guterres on 23 September.

The high-level meeting is a critical moment for governments to show increased ambition on climate action. Youth are to play a prominent role, with Guterres calling on young people to “revolutionise the world”.

After New York, where she will join climate demonstrations, Thunberg is expected to tour the US, Canada and Mexico before traveling to the UN climate talks in Santiago, Chile, which start on 2 December – taking a sabbatical year from school to dedicate herself to activism.

Guterres asks all countries to plan for carbon neutrality by 2050

Refusing to fly because of the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions associated with air travel, Thunberg will go by sea on a 60-foot sailboat fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines that generate electricity. The aim is a zero carbon voyage.

Thunberg said she decided to make the trip because the “window of time when things are in our hands” to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C “is closing fast”. She warned world leaders had to listen to the voices of millions of young people concerned about the climate crisis.

“Together with many other young people across the Americas and the world, I will be there, even if the journey will be long and challenging,” she said.

Good news!
I’ll be joining the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, COP25 in Santiago and other events along the way.
I’ve been offered a ride on the 60ft racing boat Malizia II. We’ll be sailing across the Atlantic Ocean from the UK to NYC in mid August.#UniteBehindTheScience pic.twitter.com/9OH6mOEDce

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) July 29, 2019

The boat on which Thunberg will travel is called Malizia II and is owned by German property developer Gerhard Senft.

It is rented to Monaco Yacht Club and team Malizia’s co-founder Pierre Casiraghi, the grandson of Monaco’s Prince Rainier III and actress Grace Kelly, who will accompany Thunberg along with professional race skipper and captain Boris Herrmann.

Thunberg’s father Svante and a filmmaker will also be aboard.

Greta Thunberg will sail across the Atlantic aboard the racing sailboat Milizia II (Photo: AndreasLindlahr)

A spokeswoman for team Malizia told Climate Home News: “We are doing the trip of our own accord because we strongly believe in Greta’s mission.”

In a statement, Herrmann praised Thunberg’s “courage” in speaking up about the climate crisis “in front of the most powerful people”. He said he was “not surprised that she considers this trip as something perfectly achievable for her” despite “the lack of comfort”.

Climate news straight to your inbox? Sign up here

Thunberg is due to set out from the UK shores mid-August and – depending on the weather – arrive in New York around two weeks later. It is hurricane season in the Atlantic, meaning the boat will be sailing against the wind and may meet rough weather. Forecasters anticipate about a dozen storms between June and November.

Aware of his responsibility, skipper Herrmann added: “We will make sure she will reach New York in the safest way possible.”

Since July 2018, the boat has been fitted with CO2 sensors to collect data on carbon in the oceans as well as the waters’ temperature, acidity and salinity levels.

The data is shared with Germany-based organisations the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Munich and the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel to inform research.

‘Fake news’: UN aviation body blocks online climate critics

Lucy Gilliam, aviation and shipping officer at NGO Transport & Environment, welcomed Thunberg’s decision to sail to the New York meeting, adding that many environmentalists remained “a little in denial over the impacts of flying”.

A transatlantic flight doubles the typical annual carbon footprint of a western European, she told CHN.

A keen sailor who has previously crossed the Atlantic, Gilliam warned it was likely to be a “difficult” and “pretty uncomfortable” voyage. “The faster you can get across, the better. It’s going to be full on. Good luck to them,” she said.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao) meets in Montreal a day after the UN’s climate action summit in New York. Icao has been criticised for setting weak climate targets for the sector and shrouding technical talks in secrecy.

Gilliam said she hoped Thunberg would seize the opportunity “to highlight the disparities between different UN bodies” on climate action.

It has not been revealed how Thunberg will travel home to Sweden after ending her Americas tour in Chile.

We’ve changed our rules on republication. Please read them here

The post Greta Thunberg to sail to New York climate summit in racing yacht appeared first on Climate Home News.

Demand for the vessels is set to shrink a third by 2050, as fossil fuel use declines under a scenario in which global warming is limited to 1.5C, according to analysis by consultancy Maritime Strategies International (MSI) for the European Climate Foundation.

“The implications are pretty bleak,” author Stuart Nicoll told Climate Home News. If finance backs too much shipping capacity, a global shift to cleaner energy “is going to wipe out a large amount of capital”.

Dry bulk carriers will also be hit by a predicted halving of the seaborne coal trade, but can switch to carrying other commodities such as grain. While there may be some growth opportunities in transporting wood pellets or biofuels, most renewable energy sources do not require fuel supplies.

Investors should target their money towards the most efficient ships and consider divesting from big carbon carriers, the report advised.

Shipping: climate advocates split over speed limits at sea

Scientists have warned that staying within 1.5C would require an unprecedented shift in political will, finance flows and behaviour. A study in Nature this month warned that existing fossil fuel infrastructure, if operated in line with past trends, would burn through the 1.5C carbon budget.

MSI also considered a pathway consistent with holding global temperature rise to 2C, the upper limit agreed in Paris. “There clearly are a range of outcomes,” said Nicoll, but “the concept of steady, constant growth in cargo, which has kind of been the bedrock of the industry… whatever scenario, they have to accept that is not going to happen.”

Campaigners have urged banks, pension funds and other major lenders to divest from shipping companies dependent on the trade in fossil fuels.

Share Action in May recommended drawing the line at shippers getting 30% of revenue or more from coal, which applies to most listed firms specialising in dry bulk.

“Due to the long operational life of ships, the low-carbon transition poses a very real threat to shipping companies reliant on fossil fuel transportation,” said the campaign group’s Christian Wilson in response to the MSI report.

Climate news straight to your inbox? Sign up here

Eleven major banks last month signed up to the Poseidon Principles, which set standards for the climate performance of shipping fleets. The framework does not address the environmental or financial risks associated with the carbon content of their cargo, however.

Johannah Christensen, managing director of the Global Maritime Forum, said in a statement that the transition to a low carbon future would “inevitably impact” the industry.

“Sober assessments of the implications of this energy transition on shipping are tremendously important to industry leaders and investors making long term strategic investment decisions, that will allow global shipping to continue to serve the needs of global trade and society at large,” she said.

We’ve changed our rules on republication. Please read them here

The post Oil tanker investments at risk from climate action, report says appeared first on Climate Home News.

Last month, the European Commission issued its recommendations on the draft national energy and climate plans (NECPs) submitted by the 28 EU member states to achieve their 2030 objectives.

But “while the plans include ambitious goals, they lack concrete policies and measures to deliver on the promises,” according to new research by the PlanUp project coordinated by Carbon Market Watch, an environmental NGO.

Climate news straight to your inbox? Sign up here

Finland, Sweden and Portugal in particular were praised for their “overall high ambition” when it comes to setting long-term energy and climate goals. But deeper analysis “reveals a lack of details and quantifiable expected results with regard to policy measures in the transport, buildings and agricultural sectors,” said Carbon Market Watch.

The NGO’s analysis is hardly surprising. In fact, it largely corroborates the European Commission’s own findings. When it issued its recommendations last month, the EU executive identified “substantial” gaps in the draft national plans – particularly when it comes to energy efficiency – and urged all EU countries to submit improved versions before the end of the year.

On transport, the five draft national plans were generally praised for addressing issues such as light transport, biofuels and electro-mobility. “However, they largely fail to recognise the importance of tackling emissions from heavy-duty transport, shipping and aviation,” according to the analysis by the PlanUp project.

Climate Home News needs your help… We’re an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

The building sector, responsible for 40% of energy consumption in Europe, was also neglected. Even though buildings are addressed in all of the five plans, they fall short, “especially when it comes to planning for deep renovation rates and energy efficiency improvements”. Germany stood out in this area however, because it set goals to achieve carbon-neutral buildings by 2050.

Agriculture is the other sector where the five countries were found to be missing the mark. With the exception of France and Portugal, “agriculture is again largely omitted” from the draft national plans, the analysis said, even though it has significant potential to contribute to carbon reduction efforts.

Finland’s forestry sector comes under particular scrutiny in this regard. Although the country won plaudits for setting an ambitious goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2035, the current EU Presidency holder plans to rely heavily on surplus carbon credits from forestry to compensate for greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors.

Finland puts new climate target top of EU leadership agenda

“Finland’s commitment to becoming carbon neutral by 2035 is very promising,” said Agnese Ruggiero, policy officer at Carbon Market Watch. “Yet, relying on policy loopholes to reach climate goals is dangerous because it means that targets are met on paper but not in practice,” she said in a statement.

“The final plan is an opportunity for the new government and the current EU Presidency holder to live up to its claims to lead on climate by committing to concrete measures in sectors such as transport and agriculture,” Ruggiero said.

A final area where all plans seem to be falling short is public involvement. While Finland and Sweden held public consultations to draft their national plans, France, Germany and Portugal failed to involve interested parties and the general public.

“A more transparent process…would ensure greater support and commitment from all parties involved,” the NGOs said.

EU countries have until the end of the year to submit revised versions of their draft national energy and climate plans (NECPs).

This piece was originally published on CHN’s media partner Euractiv.

The post EU ‘climate leaders’ plans found lacking appeared first on Climate Home News.