I am frequently asked about what are the issues in relation to ship emissions and why are they on the table. This blog is not the place for a detailed discussion but here are some hints on the background and data.
It is worth remembering that shipping is on the agenda but is fairly low down on the list of topics that will have to be agreed in Copenhagen. Following the debate is important for me as the negotiations on adaptation finance may veer off in one direction and the sector debate in another so shipping may find itself required to pay a tax to the adaptation fund as well as being in a sectoral agreement (so required to also hit specific emission reduction targets).
Whenever I talk about the possible outcome I am reminded of the book ‘The Black Swan’ and Taleb’s key point that as we move into more sophisticated systems our capacity to predict the future is reduced. In this case we are playing poker (but we can't see the cards) and do not know what "outliers" or new developments may appear either before or during Copenhagen.
Who will be responsible for marine emission regulations after Copenhagen?
IMO will still be responsible – yes for both of the options I believe are most likely will leave responsibility with IMO.
Background
IMO 2nd GHG study finds that international shipping CO2 emissions in 2007 were 870 million tonnes CO2. so about 3% of total world emissions and somewhat lager than the total emissions of Germany. But shipping also contributes substantially to GDP, see Chamber of Shipping study. They also transport most of the goods that I buy in my local high street.
So what may Copenhagen mean for marine industry?
Marine bunker fuels are covered in two non papers that are part of the AWG LCA negotiation.
Paper 49 is the one on sectoral issues. After Barcelona we had an increase in options for marine bunker fuels (all of 7 plus the one in the finance scope). Best guesses are for option 1 or 3 –
Option 1 is addressed at Conference of parties (to UNFCCC) asking them to work through IMO
Option 3 – reiterates support for common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) but also states that any measures at IMO should not be seen as restricting trade.
Negotiation text on contribution of adaptation fund - we now have as part of paper 54 a submission from Nigeria and Liberia that proposes a tax on bunker fuels. But there are many unknowns as yet and no indication of the size of the tax.
Some interesting developments
LR are part of a major EPSRC research consortium in ‘The low carbon shipping the system approach’ with 5 major universities in UK as well a significant industrial support. This has just started so watch this space. Other interesting developments in Copenhagen include the Danish development – ‘Green Ship of the Future’ , and learn more at the Bright Green conference to be held in 12 and 13 December. (link to logo which we as member display) . My colleague, Nicholas Brown recently posted on another relevenat development in Marine, Lab on a Ship.
Other issues that influence matters
Taking just a few examples (or this blog will be far to long) in USA the EPA has sent the ship emission rule to the White House. While this is for SOx and NOx, the EPA is proposed in the Boxer Kerry bill to develop a rule for energy efficiency of marine engines so a case of watch this space. In the EU as part of the negotiation position for Copenhagen EU agreed to promote a 20% reduction in international ship emissions by 2020 based on a 2005 baseline I am still not clear what the actual baseline data will be? As the IMO GHG study does not have 2005 data and there are difference between the IEA data (which is lower) and IMO data.
So where do I find out more?
IMO website for GHG study summaries
International Chamber website with information and papers
What is happening in the run up to Copenhagen
British shipping website
No comments:
Post a Comment