University College London’s (UCL) Energy Institute recently hosted a seminar entitled “International Shipping Greenhouse Gas (GHG) policy post-Paris Agreement”.
The seminar welcomed David Balston, Director of Policy and Director Safety & Environment at the UK Chamber of Shipping and Dr. Tristan Smith, Lecturer at UCL Energy Institute to the podium to present their expert views.
In this two-part feature, Ship Efficiency Review presents the discussion points for both speakers. Part One will present David Balston’s expert views and Part Two will present Tristan Smith’s expert insight into studies conducted by the UCL Energy institute and industry studies that he leads.
Dr. Tristan Smith, the second expert speaker to take the podium gave his views on the proceedings at COP21 and how the shipping industry had been left out the Paris Agreement and tossed back to the IMO.
He gave great insight into recent GHG submissions and member State feedback at MEPC 69 based upon preliminary analysis conducted by the UCL Energy Institute. Ship Efficiency Review will be reporting exclusively on this preliminary research and findings in the coming weeks.
Smith touched upon the fact that GHG discussions have in the past been difficult to rouse at the IMO. His view being that the industry’s progression towards acting upon GHGs is evidence by the fact that relatively lengthy discussions were held for the first time at an MEPC session. Also, the fact that key industry associations that held firm beliefs before the COP21 climate negotiations, switching to alternative beliefs about shipping’s GHG emissions was something that Smith highlighted as an indicator of progress for the industry. However, he did allude to the fact that there are some very difficult decisions that lie ahead.
Smith echoed David Balston’s statements about the industry being the greenest form of transport and the push for GHG mitigation in the greenest freight transportation sector could push freight onto road or air which would be severely detrimental and wholly counterproductive. Also the fact that GHG mitigation efforts might push the cost of sea transport up, which would be a bad scenario for not only developing countries but also developed countries.
Drawing reference to the fact that ships are effectively 20, 30, 40 MW floating power plants, Smith described how hard it is to decarbonise ships due to the fact that they can’t be plugged into electrical points whilst at sea, and can’t store low density fuels onboard. He also stated how it is hard to conceptualise the alternatives for shipping measures and technologies to reduce emissions as people tend to find it difficult to envisage alternatives to traditional heavy fuel oil (HFO) and 2-stroke diesel engines, for instance.
However, Smith strongly stated that this is not a reason to not decarbonise. It is certainly challenging to ensure people become less cautious about using such alternatives, but it should not act as a barrier to preventing emissions reductions now.
When running through a series of projections, Smith highlighted the challenges that lie in the fact that if other parts of the world are decarbonising, the low cost of fuel may drive HFO rather than liquefied natural gas (LNG) or other biofuel types said Smith. Offset considerations need to be thought about ahead, he stated. We need to think about what offsets may do for other parts of the industry or different industries altogether.
Another issue Smith highlighted was the emphasis there is on politics and not enough fact-based science evidence within the industry. He voiced that procrastination leads to increasing challenges and the industry as a whole needs to take into account more of the information that comes from research and use this to make changes immediately.
Ship Efficiency Review News
To contact the reporter responsible for this article, please email editor@fathom-mi.com
