lloyd's list - regulation

Data use obscures shipping's real CO2emissions

Thursday 03 December 2015, 13:04 by Panos Zachariadis

Letter to the editor: Models based on inaccuracies and assumption

SIR, I refer to the article Shipping emissions 'could comprise 17% of global CO2 by 2050' (Lloyd's

List, Tuesday November 24, 2015).

As someone who has read the latest (3) IMO GHG study, I must admit that it is becoming 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 greenhouse gas 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.

The European Parliament policy paper titled Emission Reduction Targets for International Aviation

Zachariadis: According to IEA figures, international

shipping in 2012 emitted only 1.6% of global CO2.

Lloyd's List - Regulation - Data use obscures shipping's real CO2 emissions http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/sector/regulation/article474794.ece?service...

1 of 3 04-12-2015 1:07 PM

and Shipping, mentioned in your article, was supposedly produced to inform the EU Parliament

members and other regulators on facts and figures. However, it echoes the NGOs' usual "punch

lines" and positions word for word.

It is dismissive of the Internatinal Maritime Organization's measures, while it includes statements of

the form “If international aviation or maritime transport were to continue to evade their

responsibility… ” (page 38).

It stresses — twice — the Marshall islands' submission to the IMO to set CO2 reduction targets

and IMO's "inaction". It advocates shipping emission reductions of at least 63% by 2050, while

(presumably to ease the lawmakers' question "how can this be achieved without killing world

trade?") the paper 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%. I would feel uncomfortable if our Euro MPs believe that these are possible or

realistic.

The paper does not differentiate the nature of shipping from aviation or from the other industries,

eg "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." (page 30).

But returning to the "According to the latest IMO GHG study…" misinformation, the article quotes:

"...the IMO’s own research, which revealed that shipping emissions...were forecast to increase by

250% by 2050." Yes, this is one forecast of many other equally possible ones. 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 actually represents just a 25% likelihood.

Another quote: "The NGOs said that shipping now accounts for 3% of global CO2 emissions."

Another favourite.

This figure may be valid for all shipping (including fishing boats, tugs, warships, domestic ships,

river boats) but not for the maritime transport that IMO can regulate.

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.

It is important to realise 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.


2 of 3 04-12-2015 1:07 PM

However, the third IMO study also mentions the figures according to world bunkers sold (reported

by the International Energy Agency). Even though there may be inaccuracies in these figures too,

to me they are far more reliable than computer models fed by inaccurate data and assumptions.

According to these IEA figures, international shipping in 2012 emitted only 1.6% of global CO2.

And if we further factor in the "tendency" of a portion of such (tax-free) bunkers to find their way

back to domestic road or home heating fuel, then shipping's CO2 emissions are even less than

1.6%.

Panos Zachariadis

Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, MSE

Article from Lloyd's List

http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/sector/regulation/article474794.ece

Published: Thursday 03 December 2015

© 2015 Informa plc. All rights Reserved. Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society

incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's


3 of 3 04-12-2015 1:07 PM

lloyd's list - regulation

Documents