Green groups condemn proposals to cut shipping emissions

Green groups condemn proposals to cut shipping emissions
Fiona Harvey 23 Oct 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/23/green-groups-condemn...

Campaigners urge governments to walk away from current talks and set tougher targets

Governments from around the world meeting online to forge a new deal on greenhouse gas emissions from shipping have been urged to walk away from the talks, as green campaigners say the proposals on the table are too weak to lead to any meaningful regulation of the sector.

Civil society groups want the UN to lead a complete rethink of shipping regulation, charging that current plans fall far short of the goals of the Paris agreement.

International shipping accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions, or about 1bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, more than twice as much as the UK’s annual emissions. These emissions are set to double as international trade flows increase further, making shipping a key source of carbon emissions – but one that has escaped the attention of policymakers, as shipping and aviation have been largely left out of the last three decades of UN climate negotiations.
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
Read more

This week, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) – the London-based UN body that governs international shipping – is holding talks, postponed from March because of the lockdown, aimed at reducing carbon from shipping. On the table are proposals to reduce the climate impacts from shipping by peaking emissions “as soon as possible”; after that, to bring down shipping emissions in line with the Paris agreement, by achieving net zero carbon “as soon as possible” after 2050; and to make mandatory a 2030 target of a 40% reduction in the carbon intensity of shipping – tonnes of CO2 per unit of activity – compared with 2008 levels.

Shipping groups say the plans are robust and would make a major contribution to tackling the climate crisis. Stuart Neil, communications director of the International Chamber of Shipping, said: “We are working hard to support an ambitious agreement between all countries at the IMO that delivers a legally binding agreement which gives the levels of certainty that the industry needs to make the investment required to deliver a zero emissions shipping sector.

“We hope that the discussions this week will result in a strong, accountable, and importantly a deliverable pathway to meet the IMO’s greenhouse gas strategy.”

But campaigners point out that the carbon intensity target, which was first agreed in 2018, will not necessarily result in an absolute reduction in shipping emissions: the overall amount of carbon produced can still increase, even while ships become more efficient. They say more stringent targets are needed.

“The draft regulation being worked on at the IMO this week is a disaster for aspirations to limit warming to the vicinity of 1.5C [above pre-industrial levels],” said Sophie Miller of Ocean Rebellion. “It ignores climate science in a way which is obscene and shows criminal disrespect for those being harmed, all over the world, by the climate disaster.”

John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, said the proposals were “industry-sponsored” and did not reflect scientific advice. “The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) made it clear that the next 10 years are crucial if dangerous global heating is to be avoided. The proposal will throw those 10 years away and allow emissions to rise for a decade or more,” he told the Guardian. “The ICS, who co-sponsored the proposed measure, and other shipping trade bodies must be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of another 10 years of climate-wrecking business as usual.”

In a dramatic last-minute intervention into talks at the International Maritime Organisation, green groups have made a joint call to scrap the current proposals and start again. They said any target must also be made properly mandatory, as currently there are no concrete plans for enforcement.

Madeline Rose, climate campaign director at Pacific Environment, a global environmental organisation, said: “This week affirms that shipping, the backbone of our fossil-fuelled global trade system, does not have the capacity to responsibly self-regulate. Apart from the US election, the biggest turning point for the climate crisis may be whether environment and climate ministers can override corporate-capture of the IMO and put one of the world’s most heavily polluting industries on an actual pathway towards zero-emissions.”

Governments meeting online under the aegis of the IMO are scheduled to finish their talks at 2pm on Friday, though they are likely to run on. The outcome may not be immediately apparent, unless a clear consensus emerges, and the next stage of the talks is for the IMO’s marine environmental protection committee to meet and consider the results of the talks in mid-November, before any clear decision can be made.

Civil society groups are also dismayed by the opaque nature of proceedings at the IMO, where the negotiations happen behind closed doors. In previous years, protests outside the London headquarters have at least provided an opportunity for activist voices to be heard, but amid the current restrictions even that is no longer possible.

“We know from sources that the delegates know about the Ocean Rebellion actions taking place outside the IMO, but there is a difference from them actually being there and experiencing it in person – a danger of democratic deficit and lack of accountability as more and more horse-trading takes place not even behind closed doors but online,” said Miller. “Some way must be found for civil society’s voice to be heard loud and clear in the corridors of shipping power. We say enough is enough: shipping greenhouse gas emissions must start to decline rapidly now.”