A limit to the speed of ships as a way of reducing carbon emissions will have the opposite effect, warns the UK Chamber of Shipping.
The proposals by the French and Greek authorities to call on regulators to enforce a speed limit on international shipping at a meeting of the International Maritime Organisation next week have no evidence that such limits will result in lower carbon emissions, it says.
“The shipping industry is committed to reducing its carbon emissions by at least 50%. To achieve this we need continued investment in green technologies that will allow ships to conduct their business through a range of low carbon fuels such as battery power, hydrogen fuel cells or even wind power,” said Anna Ziou, Policy Director at the UK Chamber of Shipping.
“Shipowners have already limited their speed by a considerable amount in the past decade and whilst these proposals have good intentions, promoting further slow-steaming as a low carbon alternative for international shipping is just not good enough. They will give a false impression that the industry is taking action, when in reality they will deliver no meaningful reduction in emissions.
“The scale of ambition required for the industry to meet the 50% target should not be underestimated so those companies developing and installing low carbon technologies should not be penalised for their investment. These proposals will do exactly that, and suggest the problem will simply go away if we just drive ships more slowly. This could result in less research and development, and discourage meaningful attempts at eliminating carbon emissions.”
Ziou also added that the proposals would lead to behavioural change in the wider supply chain that could further drive up emissions.
“Speed reduction could result in supply chains using alternative modes of transport, such as road haulage. This would increase overall emissions.
“In addition, ships may call at certain ports that are tidally constrained where a delay of just one hour could result in a knock-on delay of 12 hours to the vessel as it awaits the next tide. Aside from the economic harm, this would unnecessarily create further emissions during the additional waiting time.”
Photo credit: UK Chamber of Shipping
Published: 7 May, 2019
‘The JMs have failed to discharge their duties by blindly helping the Banks mount a false case against the Defendant,’ wrote defence lawyers representing former IPP Director Dr Goh Jian Hian in court statement.
Lead prosecutor Andreas Myllerup Laursen aims for a fine and a prison sentence in the so-called Syria case scheduled to commence in Odense, Denmark on 26 October, writes the Danish publication.
In a modern re-telling of the story of David versus Goliath, local bunker barge owners/charterers successfully resisted claims brought in the Singapore courts by Phillips 66 for misdelivery of bunkers.
Bunker barge owners and operators; traders and suppliers; banks, including players in other countries, will have to re-examine respective operations, advises Helmsman Associate Director Jonathan Tan.
Vopak BL was a non-essential document with no contractual force and had no effect as a contract of carriage or as a document of title, states written Judgement issued by Singapore Court of Appeal.
Dwivedi Vivek Kumar ended his tenure as Global Head – Bitumen & Shipping & Regional Head – APAC at GP Global APAC on 10 November 2020 due to internal structuring of the GP Global Group.