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 newly launched Code of Best Practices – Commodity Financing guidelines will be the new ‘reference point’ taken by banks when considering to give trade finance to trading houses, believes Ian Teo.
Captain Daknash Ganasen, Senior Director (Operations & Marine Services), MPA, provides direction on what should players do when providing bunker fuel to a COVID-19 infected ship, and more.
Garren Hay will be responsible for sales of the PANOLIN range of Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants for the Singapore sole distributor agent Gealubes Consulting & Trading Pte Ltd.
Universal Alliance, BMS United, Digiland International, Goodwood Associates, Southernpec (Singapore), and Taigu Energy were involved in alleged circular fictitious trades of fuel oil during July 2015.
Bunker orders of ISO 8217:2010 spec LS 380 cSt 0.5% for Nord Gemini, Nord Titan, Ocean Rosemary, and Luzern were placed through global commodities trading and logistics house Trafigura Pte Ltd.
While Covid-19 concerns are important, Captain Rahul Choudhuri was quick to note this does not mean bunker fuel related issues have indeed disappeared from the shipping sector.