Members of the Clean Shipping Coalition, European campaign groups Transport & Environment and Seas at Risk, say they are appalled by the complete lack of ambition shown at a recent meeting to discuss emissions reductions for the shipping industry by 2050.
The 74th session IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 74) was held in London between 13 to 17 May.
They noted the meeting being plagued by procedural and process issues with little or no serious discussion on the merits of the various proposals for measures to deliver immediate emissions reductions before 2023, which have been submitted over the past 6 months.
“The sound of deckchairs being rearranged was deafening at IMO this week,” said John Maggs of Seas At Risk and President of the Clean Shipping Coalition.
“Faced with demands for urgent action to tackle the climate emergency, the IMO became a parody of itself with those that never wanted shipping climate action in the first place ensuring little or no progress was made.”
“Shipping is the only sector not subject to binding climate regulation and its remaining climate budget is fast being used up,’ said Bill Hemmings, aviation and shipping director at Transport & Environment.
“Speed regulation is the most effective measure on the table, fortunately it will go forward for discussion at the next session. We have no time to lose, IMO procrastination must stop.”
The shipping sector emits approximately 3% of the annual global CO2 emissions. Under a business-as-usual scenario, and if other sectors of the economy reduce emissions in line with Paris Agreement, shipping could represent some 10% of global GHG emissions by 2050.
IMO adopted a strategy to decarbonise shipping by 2050, and as a mid-term goal, to reduce the carbon intensity of the sector by at least 40% by 2030 compared to 2008.
In order to achieve these targets, it committed to implement immediate measures to achieve GHG reductions before 2023. If IMO is to achieve this goal, a decision on such measures must be taken by summer 2020.
Related: Drewy: How slow can you go?
Related: Alibra Shipping: Slow steaming, a solution to reduce CO2 emissions?
Related: Oko-Institut report finds positive impact on slow steaming for bulkers
Related: CIMAC: No ‘silver bullet’ in immediate sight to meet GHG reductions
Related: EU study finds easiest paths in meeting 2030 GHG reduction target
Related: Decreasing vessel speeds offer ‘false impression’ of GHG reductions
Related: Shipping CEOs agree on mandatory speed measure for vessels
Photo credit: International Maritime Organization
Published: 21 May, 2019
The local bunkering sector has adapted to IMO 2020 requirements and LSFO is now available at more than two earlier locations, notes bunker supplier Trillion Energy.
Claiming USD 108,887.87 for the supply and delivery of 310.00 mt of low sulphur marine gas oil at the Port of Jeddah on or about 23 February 2020.
A sanitisation expert offers Manifold Times a summary of the processes involved in disinfecting a ship together with the equipment and products used in the operation.
‘As the saying goes without people buying things, manufacturing will slow, trade will also slow and shipping movements slows down. It’s a whole chain of reaction,’ says Simon Neo.
Laboratory looking to collaborate with Singapore bunker surveyors to roll out COVID 19 testing service, which has been successfully adopted by land-based industries, to the maritime sector.
Sinfeng Marine Services filed an application to the Court of Appeal to withhold information from the liquidators on October 2019; the appeal was dismissed a month later.