Guardian, John Vidal, environment editor, Monday 18 July 2011
![]() |
| Maritime countries have agreed to regulate shipping emissions – but campaigners warn the rules don't go far enough. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian |
Countries have taken a first step towards reducing climate emissions from shipping with a global agreement to reduce energy use in new vessels from 2013 onwards.
The belated
action on Friday by 55 of the world's biggest sea-faring nations meeting at UN's international maritime organisation in London will force all ships over
400 tonnes built after 2013 to improve their efficiency by 10%, rising to 20%
between 2020 and 2024 and 30% for ships delivered after 2024. The first ever
regulation of emissions in shipping is expected to lead to greenhouse gas
emission reductions of 45-50m tonnes a year by 2020.
But China,
Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa have secured a six and a half year delay
for new ships registered in developing countries, which could mean the first
guaranteed effective date of the reform will be in 2019. Shipping accounts for
3-4% percent of man-made CO2 emissions worldwide and this figure is expected to
rise to 6% by 2020, with emissions doubling by 2050 if no action is taken. Shipowners,
who traditionally do not pay for the fuel that their ships use, have long
resisted any regulation despite increasing pressure from environmental groups
and reformers within the industry.
Environmental
NGOs welcomed the tightening of the energy efficiency design index (EEDI)
standard but cautioned that because it only applies to new ships replacing
older ones at the end of their long lives, the full effects of today's decision
will take a long time to have any major impact. There is a significant danger,
said some, that many shipowners will elect to have their new ships flagged in
developing countries that provide a waiver.
"Today's
decision should result in fuel savings of $5bn a year by 2020 and CO2
reductions of 22m tons. This is an unprecedented economic and environmental
opportunity and the IMO has taken an important step forward", said Peter
Boyd, COO of Carbon War Room.
If the same
standards were applied to the existing fleet of more than 30,000 ocean-going
ships it could save $50bn a year in fuel and 220m tons of CO2, he said.
"There
will be no change to existing ships which are currently pumping out a billion
tones of CO2 each year, and for new ships it will take another dozen years
until the EEDI is really delivering benefits. Operational changes could be
delivering major benefits today," said Jacqueline Savitz, the senior
campaign director for the marine conservation NGO Oceana.
The
efficiency improvements are expected to be met through better engine design,
more efficient hull shapes, improved waste heat recovery systems and the use of
hull coatings to make ships more "slippery".
The deal is
not likely to satisfy the European Commission that the maritime organisation is
successfully regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The EC is therefore expected
to proceed with its threat to bring shipping into the Emissions Trading Scheme,
as it is doing in aviation, where there have been recent legal challenges from
non-European countries.
In a
separate development on Friday, the European Commission said it plans to tighten ship fuel sulphur regulations, which should lead to public health
savings of billions of dollars, especially in countries like Britain and
Holland that border busy sea lanes. The proposal would cut the maximum
permissible sulphur content of fuels to 0.1% from 1.5% from 2015 in sensitive
areas such as the Baltic Sea and the Channel, and to 0.5% from 4.5% in all
other areas from 2020.
Shipping
burns some of the most polluting fuels, and the proposal is expected to fine
particle emissions from ships by up to 80 percent, the commission said.
The
expected cost to the shipping industry of the new standards is between €2.6bn
and €11bn ($3.7-$15.6bn), which the EU executive argues would be far outweighed
by public health savings, of up to €34bn
![]() |
| Waiting game: Tankers moored off Devon waiting for oil prices to rise even further |



No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.