Transcript Slide 1
What about plan B? Oxford Manchester Sussex East Anglia Southampton Newcastle Cambridge Directors Professor Kevin Anderson Professor Kate Brown Professor Jim Hall Professor John Shepherd Professor Robert Watson Dr. Paul Gilbert With special thanks to Alice Bows and Richard Starkey [email protected] Tyndall Assembly, Southampton 2nd September, 2010 Overview • About me • Role that Tyndall has played when looking at plan B • A case for looking at plan B with regard to international shipping policy • Complexity of doing this • Options to move forward About me Tyndall lecturer in climate change, sustainability and project management within MACE Mechanical engineer by trade Control and reduction of international shipping emissions • • Allowing nations to take responsibility Advising policy Life cycle assessments of low carbon technologies Tyndall’s approach to ‘plan B’ Tyndall’s role As climate change researchers we should not be simply answering policy makers questions Questioning policy makers policy In some cases, policy has become more closely aligned to Tyndall’s research • Some examples of this from Tyndall Manchester UK’s climate change Act Decarbonising the UK • Looked at endpoint targets and questioned emission pathways Cumulative emissions • Their importance became recognised in various quarters NGOs started campaigning for climate change Act • Funded various research activity including ‘Living within carbon budget’ • Received high-profile media attention • Main message – Urgency for emissions peak date Now have climate change act, short term budgets and emission pathway Raising profile of aviation emissions • • • • • • • • Plan A – ICAO to tackle aviation emissions UK aviation emissions growing at twice the rate of GDP Plan B – Assessed aviation at a national scale Revealed incompatibility between UK’s energy and aviation 2003 White papers NGO activity in similar area – received high-profile media attention No longer a side-line issue Aviation considered important by CCC UK policy makers supported inclusion of aviation in EU-ETS A case for looking at plan B with regard to international shipping policy Reasons for doing so: • Sector that is predicated to grow • Receives little attention, as it is difficult to mitigate emissions • Political orthodoxy is very global but no international agreement – Can this global sector only mitigate emissions through global policy? Shipepedia Most efficient mode of transport per tonne-km CO2 emissions from international shipping estimated at 807 Mt in 2007 2.7 % of global CO2 and expected to grow very rapidly Shipepedia • • • • 80 % of world trade is shipped, closely linked to economical development Historically, growth rate matched GDP Growth in seaborne trade is 4.1 % per annum Outstripping GDP which grew at 3.4 % over same period Source: IMO 2009 Shipping and globalisation There is significant importance for continued growth for shipping in terms of globalisation • Delivers the global demand for grain, crude oil and tea! • And other essential items such as… Never ending amounts of technology A large car for the school run Staple fruit and veg all year round! Shipping and globalisation Increasingly seen as fundamental for developing economies “Whilst grounding all aircraft would have little impact on global trade, berthing all ships would bring global trade to a standstill” (stakeholder) Does shipping need to reduce its emissions? “No, no, no, no, no, no, no!” (Angry stakeholder) Shipping sector’s view Little appetite in many parts of the shipping industry for emission reductions • • • Equating mitigation with job losses Paying a premium for being environmentally friendly Loss of market share due to modal shift Furthermore, given that shipping contributes to a small proportion of global emissions attention paid to shipping was unwarranted • • Given the industry’s fuel efficiency The lack of pressure placed on road transport Why have shipping emissions been overlooked? Kyoto Protocol • Nations do not need to include international shipping and aviation in national inventories and targets • UNFCCC handed responsibility to IMO to pursue emission reductions • However in 13 years, failed to act What makes shipping an interesting area to explore in terms of climate change? Several reasons including: • Shipping integral to economic growth • Uncertainty in emissions data • Complex system • Balance of power in terms of negotiations • Contractual arrangements – Incentivise inefficient behaviour – Vested interests of the actors, no advantage to decarbonise • Dirty fuel – Heavy fuel oil International CO2 emissions from shipping Without an agreed starting point, how steep are emission cuts required to be Global CO2 estimates vary substantially depending on the type of model used On going debate in literature for which is most appropriate 1200 1000 CO2 Emissions (Mt) • 800 600 IEA Fuel Statistics Corbett 1999 Endresen 2003 International Endresen 2003 Corbett 2003 Corbett 2004 Corbett 2004 Eyring 2005 Endresen 2007 IMO Total IMO International Technical Athens Paxian 2009 400 200 1970 1980 1990 Year 2000 2010 Shipping - Complex system Global nature of the shipping industry is an extremely challenging barrier to address Registered in nation C Owned by another country in nation B Owned by a company in nation A Crewed from a manning agency in nation E Operated by ship management in nation D Uses nationals from nation F Source: (UNFCCC 1996) Not just organisational and institutional Routes not limited to 2 or 3 nations • • Depending on the type of service, they can ‘tramp’ around the seas to pick up cargo Relatively few services will be limited to one or two ports Source: LMIU A strange balance of power? • Whilst the balance of power in terms of negations normally lies with US and Western Europe • In shipping this lies with the owner and register of ships – Flag of convenience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Territories and countries with largest Controlled fleet Registered vessels Japan Panama Greece Liberia Germany Marshall Islands China Hong Kong, China Norway Greece Republic of Korea Bahamas United States Singapore Hong Kong, China Malta Denmark China United Kingdom Cyprus (UK 14th) Source: UNCTAD 2009 Plan A – Current efforts to reduce shipping emissions Outcome of Copenhagen “Negotiators have so-far failed to see beyond their own narrow or group interests… They are currently hemmed in by stale political positions… This is unfortunate and regrettable.” (Bill Hemmings, Transport and Environment) Current international progress IMO notoriously slow “On average, it is taking seven and a half years for international shipping legislation to enter into force following adoption by a government.” (Richard Mead, Lloyds list) “If the way the IMO works is the way other UN things work, then the cockroaches will win the day… it’s shocking trying to get people to agree on even the most simple things.” (stakeholder) To give them some credit… Put forward its own technical and operational developments to reduce GHG emissions And suggested policy instruments in the form of: • Efficiency standards • Proposals for emissions trading EU perspective Pressure to act at an EU level “I say to the IMO: time is running out,” (Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate action) • No international agreement by December 2011 the EU Commission will act • With the proposed scheme entering into force by 2013 • With international shipping emissions expected to rapidly grow and seaborne trade outstripping GDP • With the very nature of the sector itself making it difficult tackle emissions • With the slow response to reduce shipping emissions at a global level • Is the current global policy approach effective enough alone to avoid dangerous climate change in the short- to medium-term? Plan B – Can the UK adopt unilateral measures to reduce its share of shipping emissions? If UK is to consider unilateral action, it first needs to determine: • What share of shipping emissions it is responsible for • What areas/actors the UK can influence to mitigate emissions UK carbon budgets and shipping By determining UK’s contribution to international shipping emissions • Compare this with other sectors • Include international shipping in the UK’s domestic emission budgets – Ensure steeper cuts do not have to be made elsewhere Unilateral action From defining the UK’s share and what it can influence: • Provides a means by which UK can implement policy • Monitor mitigation efforts over time Apportionment of emissions Multiple methods to share out international shipping emissions Bunker fuel sales – reported as memo item to UNFCCC • Under-reporting occurs • Penalises coastal nations selling relatively cheap fuel Netherlands – 48.9 Mt CO2 UK – 7.7 Mt CO2 Germany – 9.6 Mt CO2 Source: UNFCCC UK government expressed concern that it did not reflect the UK’s actual share Again, plan B Is this apportionment method fair? UK’s responsibility Assessed and quantified UK’s share under a range of methods • Fairness, data cost and quality, and ease of implementation If shipping is viewed as a complex system consisting of a number of interdependent actors then Consumers of shipped goods and producers of these goods are the dominant actors within the system • The exchange of goods is crucial for economic growth • Shipping facilitates the movement of these goods • Therefore most responsible for emissions UK’s shipping emissions • Proxy for goods consumed and produced from shipping – As the fairest method is the most data and time intensive method • Up to six times higher than bunker fuels estimate Goods produced – 31.4 Mt CO2 Bunker fuel sales – 7.7 Mt CO2 Including this in UK carbon budgets • Mean steeper cuts in other sectors Goods consumed – 42.1 Mt CO2 What can the UK influence? Goods consumed and produced • Such behavioural changes are essential to start decarbonising in short- to medium-term • Lower congestion, incentivise lower-carbon operational behaviour, incentivise shorter journeys, encourage more local consumption/production • Push freight onto land-based modes (assuming no accompanying regulation) Location of emissions • Control release of local pollutants, standard of vessels in waters, lower congestion at UK ports, incentivise more efficient routing • Reverse modal shift Type of fuel sold • Incentivise low-carbon fuels • Ships refuel elsewhere Conclusions Cumulative shipping emissions increasing faster than GDP Consumption and production of goods are driving this increase Shipping facilitates consumption Ipods, family cars, fruit + veg Need to reduce these shipping emissions in short- to medium-term Plan A is not working – the IMO has not delivered Technological measures will not be enough, neither will operational measures Plan B needed – national action to complement IMO/EU action Issues IMO has limited influence over but national Gov can play a role National governments can influence the key drivers Nations should include shipping in budgets and targets Apportioning based on consumption increases the UK’s share by 6 times Unilateral policy should focus on what it can control nationally Plan A, Because there is no Plan B Plan B, Because Plan A is not enough Questions for discussion • If shipping is the most efficient mode of transport and key for globalisation, does it need to reduce its emissions? • If so, at what rate? • Is decarbonising the sector compatible with economic growth? • Does the IMO have enough influence to reduce emissions when the key drivers are consumption and production? • What are the advantages and disadvantages to include shipping emissions in UK’s national budgets and targets? • What (if any) other plan B’s spring to mind? Is this one plausible? • How far can emissions trading take us? Shipping in relation to global emissions • Many global budgets consider a high probability of not avoiding dangerous climate change – what is the danger behind this? • Of the small handful of shipping scenarios out there, majority based on SRES scenarios and only one assumes shipping will fall by 2050 • Expected to grow and will take a significant if not all of budget by 2050 • If continue to grow then means other sectors will need to make even more steeper cuts to ensure avoidance of dangerous climate change 50 GtCO2yr-1 40 30 20 10 0 2000 Tyndall 2015 med Tyndall 2015 high Tyndall 2020 Dh SRES Shipping Low Shipping Medium Shipping High Tyndall 2020 Dl CCC 2016 4% low 2010 2020 2030 Year 2040 2050 Contractual arrangements • • • • • • • Within the sector, contracts are agreed between two parties only, to protect the economic interests for both parties under various conditions. In terms of reducing emissions either technically or operationally, these contracts are often responsible for incentivising inefficient behaviour Under a voyage charterparty, ship owner sets the speed When arrives, it port can handle the ship it unloads and reloads If not, it is entitled to a compensation, whilst waiting to unload Often the compensation is higher than the extra fuel cost and then the incentive is for the ship operator to set sail at high speed to arrive as early as possible The highest potential savings is expected where economic considerations (incentives from contractual arrangement) presently favour inefficient operational arrival Fuel use • Heavy fuel oil • Provide an adequate global supply of cleaner distillate (diesel) fuel for the shipping industry is considered by some to be too great a challenge in itself • Alice do you have anything on the cooling effect of HFO?