THREE per cent. That is how much the shipping industry contributes to total global carbon emissions. It might not sound much for a sector that carries 90 per cent of world trade. But given current predictions for climate change, that number needs to fall drastically, and fast.
It isn鈥檛 just about greenhouse gases. The shipping industry still uses 鈥渂unker fuel鈥� made from the remnants of petrol refining. Loaded with noxious gases and fine particles, it is a major contributor to the 4.2 million people whose deaths are attributed to air pollution globally every year.
Advertisement
Some progress has been made already, with an in fuels from 3.5 to 0.5 per cent from 2020. This took the 174 members of the International Maritime Organization 12 years to negotiate. We don鈥檛 have that kind of time for the next steps.
In 2018, the shipping industry set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 . The world鈥檚 largest shipping company, Maersk, set a zero-carbon target for mid-century, and has ploughed more than $1 billion into cutting emissions. Other companies are taking similar steps, installing scrubbers to reduce sulphur emissions, converting boats to run on liquefied natural gas and even fitting sails.
The truth is, though, that the technologies to help them hit their most ambitious targets don鈥檛 yet exist. If we leave the companies to carry all the responsibility and risk, we shouldn鈥檛 be surprised if they abandon their ambitions. To succeed, we must combine easy-to-implement, short-term measures with ambitious, long-term policies and investment.
First, we must ban bunker fuel and stop oil companies using the shipping industry as a waste disposal system for otherwise unusable fuel. Major oil companies that have prepared for such a ban and have invested in cleaner fuels now support tougher regulations on dirty fuel such as the 2020 sulphur cap, because this gives them a competitive edge.
Second, we must impose speed limits. Cutting speeds now by 20 per cent below the 2012 average would by 2030 reduce emissions by up to a third compared with business as usual. Yes, this would slow trade, but goods transported by sea aren鈥檛 generally perishable. Technology can help to make the flow of ships more predictable and reduce time spent idling, such as waiting their turn to dock.
Third, ships in port must be able to connect with the land-based electricity grid to support activities such as loading, heating and lighting, rather than using their auxiliary engines. Ports including Vancouver and Seattle have been equipped with shore-power technologies. California has .
Fourth, shipowners need to embrace innovation. Through the labelling scheme established by my Solar Impulse Foundation, I have come across astonishing innovations that can reduce costs as well as emissions in the shipping sector. Auxiliary wind propulsion systems, such as rigid wingsails or , are inspiring examples.
Support is needed from elsewhere to help those prepared to take risks. In June, the banking sector created the to encourage lending for greener shipping. That is heartening, and fundamental to ensuring that the next wave of ships to be built don鈥檛 lock us into a carbon-intensive maritime future until mid-century.
For years, I have been an advocate of bridging the gap between economy and ecology, using the market to find solutions that protect the environment and make good business sense. For shipping too, those solutions are out there.
