Reading the recent article NGOs say new report shows need for action on shipping emissions, Mr. Panos Zachariadis, Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, MSE would like to highlight the following issues regarding the IMO study and ”arbitrary misinformation” of the public:
” As someone who has read the latest (3rd ) IMO GHG study, I must admit that it is becoming very tiring to hear in presentations, or read in the press, the statement “According to the latest IMO GHG study…..” followed by a phrase that either is not found in the IMO study, or is a selective, isolated and misleading, highlight of a portion, a certain number or one of the many scenarios of the study.
Nobody disputes that action should be taken to reduce GHG emissions. However, such action should be aided by the actual available information, making clear the huge uncertainties of such studies, while avoiding misinformation or the “altering” of the studies in order to push certain political or other agendas. Providing the regulators with “biased” information is certainly not productive. Their decisions will simply not be appropriate, perhaps creating more problems than they solve.
I will attempt to highlight such problematic areas in this article:
Quote “…according to a new scientific study conducted by the European Parliament.”
In reading this new scientific study – “Emission Reduction Targets for International Aviation and Shipping” – one realizes that a) as far as shipping emissions are concerned, it mostly presents the results of the 3rd IMO GHG study b) is not so much a scientific study but rather a policy opinion paper, intended to support the positions of EU for specific large CO2 reduction targets from aviation and marine transport (which it practically lumps together).
I believe any paper that includes statements of the form “If international aviation or maritime transport were to continue to evade their responsibility… ” (p.38) falls more into the category of opinion paper rather than a “scientific study”.
The purpose of the study is to “support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation….”. In this case for drastic CO2 reductions of -78% to -94% by 2050 for shipping compared to shipping’s 2005 emission level! Or at least -13% by 2030 and -63% by 2050 to stay below 2deg.C global target (p.40). It further admits:
” Achieving these targets may require both encouraging behavioural change which leads to reduced demand for international transport services and enabling the offsetting of climate impacts by financing emission reductions in other sectors” (p.41). And elsewhere: “In the first place they (aviation and maritime transport) are industrial sectors similar to sectors such as electricity generation, steel or cement production… not more or less important than, for example, electricity, chemicals or retail. Since all other sectors are likely to be extensively covered by the post-Paris global mitigation targets, international aviation and shipping need to be covered by similar requirements.” (p.30).
Presumably to ease the lawmakers’ question “how can this be achieved without killing world trade ?” the study indicates that huge reductions are possible with existing technology citing, among others, Air Lubrication 5-15%, wind engine 3-12%, while the main measure is “slow speed” 10-30%. (By the way, when the usual policy-shaping NGO’s were asked in the past, that such speed reductions would result in the building and operation of more ships to satisfy trade demands, and thus more CO2 emissions, their reply was that “studies”- here we go again – show the opposite is true i.e., according to them, it is environmentally preferable to build and operate more ships and have them all go slow speed!)
In any case, the “study” is very critical of the already taken IMO’s technical and operational measures, calling them insufficient (failing to note that the operational measures are still being developed), while it does not forget to stress -twice- the submission by the Marshall Islands to the IMO, calling for specific CO2 reduction targets, which IMO did not act upon immediately. All these are familiar “pointers”, heard again and again by the relevant NGOs, and thus finding them in a “scientific study” requested by EU Parliament bodies, raises issues of credibility, as well as questions on the extent that NGOs may influence such studies
Other quotes in this article:
Quote: “IMO’s own research found that shipping CHG emissions…. are projected to grow by up to a further 250% by 2050.”
The key word here is up (up to). In fact the IMO study presents 4 BAU (Business As Usual, i.e no regulation) equally likely scenarios: 1. 50% increase by 2050, 2. 88% increase, 3. 156% and 4. 250%. Of course we only hear about the 250% possible scenario, while it represents only a 25% likelihood.
Quote: “Shipping currently accounts for nearly 3% of global C02 emissions”.
This figure may be valid for all shipping (including fishing boats, tugs, war ships, domestic ships, river boats) but not for the maritime transport that IMO regulates. However, the authors of the mentioned article, by linking this statement to the IMO Secretary General in the very next phrase (“… but the IMO’s SG thinks differently…”), the misinformation that maritime transport is responsible for 3% of CO2 emissions perpetuates. In fact, “according to the IMO GHG study” in 2012 (last year of the study) international shipping (what IMO has authority to regulate) was responsible for 2.2% of global CO2 , with the 2007-2012 average being 2.6%. Including GHG total effects, these numbers are 2.1% and 2.4% respectively.
This is also stated in the “New EU study” advising “In 2012 both sectors (aviation and maritime transport) account for about 3 to 4% of global emissions” (p.9) and “In 2012 aviation and maritime transport amounted to 1.3% and 2.2% respectively”.
It is important to realize that all these figures result after many assumptions are made, including the input of admittedly wrong (IHSF) and incomplete (AIS, LRIT) ship data in the computer models. The future projections are even less reliable, due to the larger number of assumptions made.
In fact, however, the 3rd IMO study also mentions the figures according to world bunkers sold (reported by the International Energy Agency – IEA). According to these, International Shipping in 2012 emitted only 1.6% of global CO2.”
Written by Panos Zachariadis
Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, MSE
The views presented hereabove are only those of the author and not necessarily those of GREEN4SEA and are for information sharing and discussion purposes only.