The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) on Wednesday (14 July) released a statement following the European Commission’s proposed extension of the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) to cover the international shipping sector:
Guy Platten, secretary general of ICS, commented: “Other than as an ideological revenue raising exercise, which will greatly upset the EU’s trading partners, it’s difficult to see what extending the EU ETS to shipping will achieve towards reducing CO2, particularly as the proposal only covers about 7.5% of shipping’s global emissions. This could seriously put back climate negotiations for the remaining 92.5% of shipping emissions.”
“We know that non-EU States like Japan have already expressed concern over this diplomatic overreach and imposition of a unilateral and extra-territorial tax on trade. It cannot be equitable for non-EU shipping companies to be forced to pay billions of euros to support EU economic recovery plans, particularly under a scheme that undermines CO2 negotiations.”
“It is clear from how such schemes work in other sectors that there will be unintended consequences from the imposition of such a proposal. There are simpler and more effective options – such as a global fuel levy – but these require political leadership rather than political expediency. Another key issue for ICS is that who pays for the cost of fuel should be the same person that ultimately pays the cost of carbon allowances.
“The failure to include investment in research and development in the proposals, at a time when the IEA and the new US administration are highlighting that emission reduction will only be possible with the development of technologies that do not currently exist, is disappointing. To indicate one thing at the beginning of the process and then to withdraw it to pay for a post covid recovery sends a clear message to industry that the EU is not truly serious about decarbonising global shipping. This also sends a message beyond shipping that political and investment risk is high in Europe. This only goes to show why we need the 5 billion USD IMO Maritime Research Fund.
“Volatility in the price of allowances makes this approach far more complicated to pass on the cost to the company that pays for the fuel, especially for the majority of smaller shipping companies which make up the majority of shipping. This proposal is overly bureaucratic. The industry’s overwhelming preference is for a global levy which will incentivise real emission reductions rather than red tape.
“It is clear that there will need to be an independent impact assessment of these proposals as soon as possible, to ensure that we are not sleepwalking towards unmanageable costs for global trade.
“ICS will along with industry partners will be reviewing the latest draft proposals in detail and will continue to highlight these concerns in discussions with the EU Council and the European Parliament. We need urgent action but action must result in decarbonisation rather than a pure money grab.”
Captain Segar, MPA Assistant Chief Executive, Operations, to be also joining IBIA for the game where proceeds will be channelled into an IBIA Bursary Fund for supporting students to obtain a maritime studies degree.
‘Consort Bunkers will be operating the youngest bunkering fleet in Singapore after complete delivery of the ‘K’ series vessels by late-2023,’ Mr SK Yeo, Founder of Consort Bunkers, tells Manifold Times.
‘Vessel suffered inter alia damage to her engines as well as other losses and expenses, including but not limited to salvage costs, costs of repairs and time lost,’ states legal document obtained by Manifold Times.
‘It is undisputed that Sing Fuels furnished fuel in Port Elizabeth that enabled the M/V Lila Shanghai to continue on its way […] and it is undisputed that Sing Fuels was never paid for this fuel,’ states Judge.
JMs wanted to confirm if both of IPP’s former auditors ‘were reasonably assured that its assessment that the receivables owed by Mercuria Energy were not in any way doubtful’, according to court documents.
A Duraisamy received a SGD 42,870.60 fine and 10-month jail sentence while Lee Been Lian was fined SGD 6,795 and received a two-month jail term due to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.