An ambitious, global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions from shipping in half by mid-century stalled as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) failed to approve any specific emission reduction measures at a meeting in London this week.
The IMO, a United Nations agency whose member states cooperate on regulations governing the international shipping industry, agreed in April to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping 50 percent by 2050. The details—along with efforts to reduce the sulfur content in fuel oil, reduce plastic litter from the shipping industry, and steps toward banning the use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic—were to be worked out at a meeting of its Marine Environment Protection Committee this week.
The committee considered a cap on ship speeds and other short-term measures that could reduce emissions before 2023, as well as higher efficiency standards for new container ships, but none of those measures was approved.
“We’ve seen no progress on the actual development of measures and lots of procedural wrangling,” said John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, an environmental organization. “We’ve effectively lost a year at a time when we really don’t have much time.”
The inaction comes two weeks after the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report calling for steep, urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ship Speeds, Fuel Efficiency and Deadlines
Environmental advocates who were at the meeting in London favored placing a cap on ship speeds, which alone could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by roughly one-third, but that plan faced fierce opposition from the shipping industry.
The committee reached a tentative agreement on Thursday that would have required a 40 percent increase in the fuel efficiency of new container ships beginning in 2022, but the agreement was later blocked after pushback from industry and member states including the United States, Brazil, India and Saudi Arabia, Maggs said. The Marine Environmental Protection Committee plans to revisit the measure in May.
“This is about how serious the IMO and IMO member states are,” Maggs said. “A key part of that is moving quickly.” Maggs said. He said the failure to quickly ramp up ship efficiency requirements “makes it look like they are not serious about it.”
IMO delegates also worked fitfully on language about next steps, but in the end the language was weakened from calling for “measures to achieve” further reductions before 2023 to a line merely seeking to “prioritize potential early measures” aimed at that deadline.
While environmental advocates panned the revised wording, IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim praised the agreement in a statement, saying it “sets a clear signal on how to further progress the matter of reduction of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from ships up to 2023.”
Banning Heavy Fuel Oil in the Arctic
Despite inaction on greenhouse gas reductions, IMO delegates continued to move forward on a potential ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic by the end of 2021.
The shipping fuel, a particularly dirty form of oil, poses a significant environmental hazard if spilled. It also emits high levels of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone that can form near the earth’s surface, and black carbon, a short-lived climate pollutant that also adversely affects human health.
The proposal was introduced by delegates from a number of countries, including the United States, in April. The IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response subcommittee is slated to develop a plan for implementing the ban when it meets in February.
During this week’s meeting, a delegation of Arctic Indigenous leaders and environmental advocates also put pressure on the cruise ship company Carnival Corporation about its fuel, demanding in a petition that Carnival cease burning heavy fuel oil in the Arctic.
“We’re at a critical time to protect what we have left,” Delbert Pungowiyi, president of the Native Village of Savoonga, Alaska, said in a statement. “It’s not just about protecting our own [people’s] survival, it’s about the good of all.”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Phil McKenna
Reporter, Boston
Phil McKenna is a Boston-based reporter for Inside Climate News. Before joining ICN in 2016, he was a freelance writer covering energy and the environment for publications including The New York Times, Smithsonian, Audubon and WIRED. Uprising, a story he wrote about gas leaks under U.S. cities, won the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award and the 2014 NASW Science in Society Award. Phil has a master’s degree in science writing from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was an Environmental Journalism Fellow at Middlebury College.
