Carbon Dioxide From Ships at Sea To Be Regulated For First Time (theguardian.com)

Carbon dioxide from ships at sea will be regulated for the first time following a historic agreement reached after two weeks of detailed talks in London. From a report: Shipping companies will halve their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under the plan, brokered by the International Maritime Organization and binding across its 170 member states. The agreement will require a revolution among ships, which are overwhelmingly fuelled by heavy oils at present. In future, they will have to not only be more energy-efficient, but also make use of cleaner energy, in the form of batteries supplying electricity, solar and wind electricity generation, and perhaps even a return to sail in some cases, or more controversially to nuclear power, as some warships already use.

Environmental campaigners said the plan was not enough given the urgency of tackling climate change, though they welcomed the deal, which has taken decades of work. Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and aviation were omitted from the 1997 Kyoto protocol and have been excluded from regulations on carbon ever since, even though shipping is used for 80% of global trade. Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, both because of the increased need for transport under the globalising economy and because many ships use dirty, carbon-rich fuels such as heavy diesel, which would be banned in many countries from onshore transport.

Comments

And nothing about sulfur?

[Zorpheus]

All the dirtiest oil from the refineries is burned in ships because their SO2 emissions are not regulated. A large ship emits as much SO2 as millions of cars. Yet they regulate CO2 for ships?
CO2 for planes would have been interesting.

Re:And nothing about sulfur?

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 for planes would have been interesting.

The California legislature already has plans to pass laws requiring all aircraft operating in California airspace to employ sails for propulsion, thereby using 100% renewable energy sources and eliminating their CO2 emissions.

Re:And nothing about sulfur?

[dyslexicbunny]

That's actually in the works. The Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is working on defining a standard. I'd heard the new standard wouldn't impact anything coming out over the next few years.

However the reality is that manufacturers continue to push for reduced fuel consumption as fuel is one of the most significant operating costs of an airline. No one is lining up to buy gas guzzling aircraft.

Re:And nothing about sulfur?

[ArgonautThief]

Disclaimer: I work in the shipping industry (on the bulk cargo ship owning and operating side) so I'm obviously biased but I couldn't keep reading this post and comments that contain so much false info and general horse-shit without weighing in with a few points.

1) SOX is regulated in the industry. Vessels are limited to burning heavy fuel oil with a max sulphur content of 3.5% at sea and distillate fuels (LSMGO) with a max content of 0.1% in any Emissions Control Area (ECA). Presently there are ECAs around Europe, North America and, some parts of China. They also exist around any island territory of the US. By 2020 the sulphur content at sea will be limited to 0.5% and 0.01% in any ECA.

2) Some AC close to 1st post stated that shipping by sea is the least efficient most expensive method of transporting anything. Really? Shipping is the most efficient method of moving X product by Y tonne of GHG emitted per mile / nautical mile / kilometre. A quick Google search can provide you with dozens of formulas to support this. However for your ease of reference, a modern bulk carrier can move 30,000MT of product from Rotterdam to New York in 10 days and will consume roughly 139MT of HFO and 134MT of LSMGO to do so. I'd like to see someone do that with a plane / train / truck and calculate how much fuel they would burn to do so.

3) For many, many reasons, most of them admittedly self serving, any modern 1st class shipping company is already light years ahead of any government regulations in regards to reducing their carbon footprint, exposure to environmental damage etc.

Whilst the article points to regulations coming into effect, it hardly covers all the steps the industry has taken until now and general public knowledge on this industry is really lacking.

Re:Most-efficient means of transport...

[hey!]

You go after the largest achievable net reductions.

Globally 50 million tons of airfreight cargo are carried. Container ships alone carry 1.7 billion tons of cargo annually, and bulk container ships like ore carriers and tankers carry even more than that. You're going to have to achieve huge net increases in airplane efficiency to equal a marginal improvement in ship efficiency, and it's not like people have been ignoring aircraft.