For reprint orders, please contact reprints@future-science.

com Foreword

Mini Focus: Shipping and Carbon Emissions

The (low-carbon) shipping forecast: opportunities on the

high seas

Carbon Management (2012) 3(6), 525–528

“ …CO2 from international shipping activity has grown at a faster rate than the
aggregate of CO2 from all sectors, and is projected to grow indefinitely…
”
Alice Bows*1 & Tristan Smith2

Keywords: complex system n energy systems n logistics n low-carbon transition n shipping

The rising challenge A spotlight on the high seas

As the years pass by, the uncomfortable but inescapable
evidence that climate negotiations have failed to even
curb the rate in growth of energy-related CO2 becomes
ever stronger. Taking the latest estimates from the
International Energy Agency, CO2 emissions grew at
6 and 3% in 2010 and 2011, respectively, despite many
of the wealthier nations individually experiencing lower
growth or even reductions in emissions in absolute terms
driven by the economic downturn (Figure 1) [1] . Coupling
these rising emissions with trends over the past decade
paints an alarming picture when contrasted with what
is required to give a reasonable chance of avoiding
‘dangerous interference with the climate system’
associated with a global temperature increase of 2°C
above preindustrial levels; a point succinctly stressed
in Anderson and Bows’ contribution to this mini focus
issue of Carbon Management [2] . It is unsurprising, then,
that the slow pace and absence of any real and binding
commitment to addressing this global challenge through
the ongoing negotiations trickles down to influence the
response at national or sectoral levels.
It is with a backdrop of inaction to mitigate GHG
emissions that the shipping sector is brought under the
spotlight in this issue of Carbon Management. From the
development of the Kyoto Protocol, the International
Maritime Organization was mandated with tackling the
emissions from the shipping sector, in recognition of its
inherently global and international nature. Individual
nations have not, therefore, had within their Kyoto
targets the GHG emissions from international shipping,
although inland waterway and coastal shipping is
governed by national commitments. Nevertheless, the
fact that the CO2 from international shipping activity
has grown at a faster rate than the aggregate of CO2
from all sectors, and is projected to grow indefinitely, has
not escaped the attention of policymakers [2] . Threats
to include shipping within the EU-ETS or the UK’s
Carbon Budgets, for instance, have fueled the debate [3]
and helped to stimulate a range of proposals, particularly
relating to market-based measures, for the shipping
sector to make a ‘fair and proportionate’ contribution
to the mitigation problem [4] . While the increase in

1
Sustainable Consumption Institute & Tyndall Centre, School of Mechanical, Aerospace & Civil Engineering, University of Manchester,
Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
2
The Energy Institute, University College London, London, UK
*Author for correspondence: E-mail: alice.bows@manchester.ac.uk

future science group 10.4155/CMT.12.68 © 2012 Future Science Ltd ISSN 1758-3004 525
 Foreword  Bows & Smith
36
CO2 from energy use and industry (GtCO2)
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Figure 1. Global CO2 emissions from energy use and industry, 1990–2011.
Data taken from [11].
momentum to develop and put in place meaningful
policies and measures is welcome, the urgency and scale
of the challenge is entirely at odds with the currently
proposed mechanisms. Anderson and Bows make this
case plain [2] , but then two questions remain: can the
shipping sector make its ‘fair’ contribution to cutting
emissions? And if the laws of physics and engineering
allow for this in principal, what economic, regulatory
or political incentives, and technological advances, are
necessary to bring this about? Opportunities for both
incremental and systemic change within the sector will
need to be maximized for even an outside chance of
avoiding 2°C. This mini focus issue presents what some
of these changes might be [5,6] , but also emphasizes how
the complexity of the shipping system places limits and
barriers in the way of progress [7,8] .
Shipping: a complex system
The highly complex nature of the shipping system is
apparent to anyone wishing to rigorously assess routes
towards incentivizing, encouraging or even enforcing
change, either endogenously or exogenously. This
complexity is manifested in many ways – actors range
from ship owners and port operators, to multimodal
logistics outfits and shippers, not to mention the
consumer at the end of the supply chain. Institutional
stakeholders include chambers of shipping, coastguard
agencies and infrastructure developers, along with
organizations seeking to protect ocean and coastal
biodiversity and the natural environment. In addition,
route management is far from straightforward, where,
unlike the majority of flights, voyages can involve many
points of departure and arrival, and even some that are
526 Carbon Management (2012) 3(6)
unplanned and decided en route. Then there are the
ships themselves and the markets they serve. Developing
meaningful policies to manage the production of CO2
from logistics, for instance as discussed by McKinnon
and Piecyk [5] , must include an understanding of
the function and activity being tackled and consider
systemic rebounds that may be incurred. This can be
within the shipping system itself, but also importantly
within the wider logistics chain where trade-offs can
be quantified. Carbon management practices need to
be tailored to specific organizations and actors – one
size does not fit all [9] .
This issue of trade-offs is a common theme
within this mini focus issue on shipping. In Smith,
a theoretical modeling framework for examining
interactions between technological or operational
change and commercial activity is presented [7] .
Without sophisticated policymaking that fully
recognizes shippings’ systemic nature, operational
measures to maximize ship owner profits negate
emission reductions achieved through technology.
Similarly, as Corbett et al. discuss, developments
that may at first sight appear to have cobenefits
regarding emission reductions, such as the expansion
of the Panama Canal [8] , could lead to an increase
in emissions by a significant proportion due to route
diversions. The challenge of balancing emission
savings from modal shift with those associated with
route distance emphasizes the need to diversify policy
discussions around shipping mitigation, to include as
a matter of course other modes of transport.
A demanding message
The problematic nature of cutting emissions
highlighted throughout these articles adds weight
to an argument that emission reductions at a level
commensurate with a ‘fair and proportionate’
response channels the debate towards more radical
options that should at least receive a fair trial. While
analysis within Mander et al. is exploring demand
management, it is not from the point of view of
expressly curbing shipping demand to meet climate
commitments, but as a result of a low-carbon energy
transition within nations [6] . Nevertheless, the
research illustrates the ‘elephant in the room’ nature
of a radical shift in demand using the example of
energy products. Results show that one of the UK
Government Department for Energy and Climate
Change’s scenarios leads to a cut in CO2 from the
import of energy sources by as much as 80%, driven
entirely by the UK shifting its internal energy system
to one that is significantly decarbonized. With
the flagship policies of the International Maritime
Organization (the Energy Efficiency Design Index
future science group
 The (low-carbon) shipping forecast: opportunities on the high seas  Foreword

and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan) show that research can help provide the evidence base
unable to deliver anything close to absolute emission not just for the least-cost policy interventions but also
reductions over the coming decades, such results and to minimize investment risks for stakeholders in the
the implications thereof deserve further scrutiny. shipping industry.

The need for a step change Last port of call

There is a need for a step change in thinking about
opportunities for new technologies. This is important
to ensure that the boundaries of what is feasible
technically and economically are properly assessed
to maximize the probability of avoiding dangerous
climate change. Rigorously testing the full spectrum
of solutions that could reduce emissions also has
important consequences for the affordability of a
transition. Crucially, such analysis can help to manage
the significant risk of assets becoming stranded
because solutions for an interim level of ambition
are technologically insufficient for long-term climate
objectives. A topical example of this can be found in
the discussions regarding the role of liquefied natural
gas (LNG) as a future marine fuel. LNG has many
benefits, reducing both CO2 emissions and non-CO2
air pollutants, when compared with conventional fuels.
However, regulatory compliance and environmental
credentials are not the only pull – due to the
unconventional gas boom LNG can also appear to be
the economically rational choice.
Together, the shipping articles in this publication
address some of the thorny issues apparent when taking
global and sectoral commitments to addressing climate
change at face value. The importance of international
trade in supporting economies is difficult to dispute
and, as such, the shipping sector has a stronger
argument than the aviation industry does for reducing
its emissions at a lower rate than the average. Yet taking
heed of the quantitative framing around climate
change mitigation makes for uncomfortable reading.
Coupling this with the challenge of how to ensure
policies aiming to address emissions in one quarter do
not exacerbate emissions in another points to a call
for more radical and whole-systems thinking within
shipping. This will maximize the chance of successfully
servicing the future consumption–production system,
while acknowledging the nature of short-term profit-
maximizing behavior and the inevitable challenge
this can present to emissions savings. Moreover, the
consequences of the radical shift in demand that will
certainly be apparent if the low-carbon transition
becomes a reality, must be brought swiftly into the

“ All of the articles in this mini focus issue …

collectively show that research can help provide the
evidence base not just for the least-cost policy
debate.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

interventions but also to minimize investment risks for The authors thank the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences
stakeholders in the shipping industry.

To move from today’s oil-derived fuels to LNG

” Research Council’s Energy Programme for funding research activity
requires significant capital investment: LNG distri-
bution, storage and bunkering facilities, new engines
and new ship designs. However, LNG is still a fos-
sil fuel; some describe it as a ‘transition’ fuel, which
raises the question: where is the transition to [10] ? All
of the articles in this mini focus issue have something
to contribute to such an analysis; they collectively
of three projects on decarbonizing shipping (Low Carbon Shipping,
Decarbonising the Maritime Supply Chain and The High Seas
Project) reflected in many of the articles within this mini focus issue
of Carbon Management. The authors have no other relevant affili-
ations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with
a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or
materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this
manuscript.

References 3 Gilbert P, Bows A. Exploring the scope for 5 McKinnon AC, Piecyk MI. Setting targets
complementary sub-global policy to mitigate for reducing carbon emissions from
1 International Energy Agency. Global Carbon-
CO2 from shipping. Energy Policy 50, logistics: current practice and guiding
Dioxide Emissions Increase by 1.0 Gt in 2011
613–622 (2012). principles. Carbon Management 3(6),
to Record High. International Energy Agency,
4 International Maritime Organization. 629–639 (2012).
Paris, France (2012).
Position Statement on the Control of 6 Mander S, Walsh C, Gilbert P, Traut M,
2 Anderson K, Bows A. Executing a Scharnow
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Ships at Ad- Bows A. Decarbonizing the UK energy
turn: reconciling shipping emissions with
Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative system and the implications for UK
international commitments on climate
Action under the Convention Fourteenth shipping. Carbon Management 3(6),
change. Carbon Management 3(6), 615–628
Session. International Maritime Organization, 601–614 (2012).
(2012).
London, UK (2011).

future science group www.future-science.com 527

 Foreword  Bows & Smith
7 Smith TWP. Technical energy efficiency, its
interaction with optimal operating speeds and
the implications for the management of
shipping’s carbon emissions. Carbon
Management 3(6), 589–600 (2012).
8 Corbett JJ, Deans E, Silberman J, Morehouse
E, Craft E, Norsworthy M. Panama Canal
expansion: emission changes from possible US
west coast modal shift. Carbon Management
3(6), 569–588 (2012).
528 Carbon Management (2012) 3(6)
9 Walsh C, Bows A. Size matters: exploring the
importance of vessel characteristics to inform
estimates of shipping emissions. Appl. Energy
98, 128–137 (2012).
10 Stephenson E, Doukas A, Shaw K.
Greenwashing gas: might a ‘transition fuel’
label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas
development? Energy Policy 46, 452–459
(2012).
11 Boden, TA, Marland G, Andres RJ. Global,
Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2
Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak
Ridge, TN, USA (2012).
future science group