Memorandum submitted by Dr Alice Bows,
Tyndall Centre, MACE, University of Manchester
The points made within this evidence are
based on ongoing preliminary research into the UK's shipping industry
and associated emissions, being carried out as part of the Tyndall
Centre's core research programme at the University of Manchester.
Much of the evidence is based on qualitative interviewing, and
is therefore gathered through dialogue with shipping industry
stakeholders. This evidence will, in some cases, require further
quantitative research to add weight to the arguments made.
For the UK Government to assess its contribution
to global climate change, it is essential to be able to account
for all emission producing sectors. It is clearly more straightforward
to do this for some sectors than others, however given the scale
of the global climate change challenge faced (Anderson and Bows,
2008), calculating all of the emissions being generated to high
precision is likely to be unnecessary. Rather, it is important
that any method of apportioning emissions to the UK for the more
"international" sectors; such as aviation and shipping,
aggregates to the global level. In other words, if the sum of
all national emissions apportioned through a particular method
does not at least approximate to the global total, the method
will not be consistent with the climate change target chosen.
At Tyndall Manchester, we have looked at what
the impact of including a "fair" proportion of emissions
from the international aviation and shipping industries has on
the UK's carbon budget (Anderson and Bows, 2007; Anderson et
al, 2008). Within the Anderson et al paper published
in Energy Policy, an estimate for the UK's shipping CO2
emissions was made, based on a crude method apportioning the global
figure for international marine bunker fuel sold, using the UK's
proportion of total global GDP. The estimate for CO2 from shipping
for 2005 was 20MtCO2 (compared with 35MtCO2 from aviation)—see
table 2 within the paper; an estimated 3% of total UK CO2 emissions
when including land use and forestry. However, this estimate is
also based on a relatively low assumption for global marine bunker
fuel, around 520MtCO2, similar to figures published by (Endresen
et al, 2004) which are considerably lower than many other
estimates for example (Corbett and Kohler, 2003; Eyring et
al, 2005)). If one of the higher figures of 800MtCO2 is taken,
then the UK's shipping contribution increases to 30MtCO2 (5% of
the UK total) using this GDP-based method.
Although the bunker fuel consumed is often recorded
by ship operators, a transparent method through which the data
can be collated and used by governments is not currently operational.
Understanding more clearly this total global marine bunker fuel
figure will greatly assist in the calculation of national emission
budgets.
How significant is global shipping's contribution
to climate change? How is this projected to change in the future?
The global shipping industry represents a considerable
contribution to climate change; due to the very high percentage
of goods transported world-wide for industrial and public consumption,
coupled with a reliance on heavy fuel oil. Currently, attempts
at estimating the CO2 emissions from global shipping have been
subject to considerable uncertainty. Figures vary from study to
study depending on the method used to make the estimation. The
table below summarises some of the estimates available:
Study
| Total fuel consumed in
2000-01 international
bunkers (Mtons)
| Total CO2
emissions
(MtonsCO2)
|
Baseline year |
Method employed
|
| Endresen (2003) | 165-200 |
500-560 | 1996-2000 | Bottom up indirect modelling based on engine type, routes, activity.
|
| Corbett (2003) | 290 | 850
| 2001 | Bottom up approach independent from fuel sales statistics.
|
| Corbett (2004) | 240-290 |
705-850 | 2001 | Bottom up approach independent from fuel sales statistics and updated from 2003.
|
| Eyring (2005) | 280 | 810
| 2001 | Bottom up approach independent from fuel sales statistics and updated from Corbett in 2004.
|
| Endersen (2007) | 200 | 634
| 2002 | Activity and fuel-based estimates.
|
| IMO expert group (2008) | 375
| 1,125 but
867 if
international
only
| 2007 | Various. |
| National Techinical University of Athens (2008)
| 297 | 943 | 2007
| Bottom up approach incorporating the development of a web-based tool for calculating CO2 emissions and involving industry data.
|
| IEA marine bunker sales | 170
| 543 | 2005 | Based on international fuel sales.
|
| |
| | |
The proportion of total global CO2 emissions for shipping,
if calculated using a top-down method, depends on a reliable global
CO2 emission figure. According to CDIAC, global CO2 from fossil
fuels is estimated to be some 30GtCO2[1]
in 2006, therefore shipping accounts for between 3%-4% of this,
depending on which estimate is used.
Clearly, shipping is a very efficient mode of transportation
considering the amount of freight moved globally. However, the
global shipping industry is expected to continue to grow. Given
the very limited global carbon budget available (Anderson and
Bows, 2008), if the UK Government is to play its part towards
a 2°C target, curbing emission growth, and ultimately reducing
the CO2 from shipping is desirable.
How should the UK's share of international maritime emissions
be measured and included in UK carbon budgets? How fast could
this be done?
Currently the UK's share of international maritime emissions
is based on the sales of bunker fuels. If this figure is divided
per head for the UK and compared with the similar figure for the
Netherlands, using this method, Dutch consumers appear to be using
28 times more bunker fuel per head. Clearly, this method of allocation
is unreasonable. There are a number of methods for apportioning
shipping emissions to the UK, with no single method likely to
appeal to all parties. However, the method should respect the
following criteria:
1. The method should ensure that if it is applied to all nations,
the aggregate is equal to the global sum of CO2 emitted by world-wide
shipping.
2. Reflect the UK's shipping activity rather than arbitrary
fuel sales.
3. Where possible, be based on actual fuel consumed rather
than modelled data.
Possible methods of apportionment that could aggregate on
a global scale include:
— Allocation based on the UK's proportion of global
GDP applied to global bunker fuel data: nb the figure obtained
will depend heavily on the global bunker fuel figure recorded
which is subject to great uncertainty—see (Corbett
and Kohler, 2003; Eyring et al, 2005) (see table).
— Allocation based on the actual fuel consumed by
incoming or outgoing ships docking at UK ports (avoiding double
counting).
— Allocation based on a percentage share of global
bunker fuel derived from the total freight-tonne-km associated
with incoming or outgoing ships docking at UK ports (avoiding
double counting).
— Allocation based on a percentage share of global
bunker fuel derived from the total freight-tonnes associated with
incoming or outgoing ships docking at UK ports (avoiding double
counting).
Possible method of apportionment that will not aggregate
on a global scale is:
— Allocation based on a particular geographical
location—ie all emissions within 100 miles of UK ports.
To incorporate shipping into UK carbon budgets, it is firstly
essential that the UK's budget reflects the UK's climate change
target (2°C), and begins with a total that reflects not only
the UK's domestic CO2 emissions, but also emissions from international
aviation and shipping. This is a critical point, as the higher
the starting total, the more rapidly the UK's carbon budget will
be consumed. See (Anderson et al, 2008) and (Anderson and
Bows, 2007) for more details.
According to industry stakeholders, ship crew record fuel
consumed on each journey, but the information is not publically
available for various administrative and competitive reasons.
In addition, Lloyd's register includes a variety of data on the
global shipping industry. Given the data is already collated at
this level, a first step in measuring CO2 associated with UK shipping
would be to work through the UK Chamber of shipping, the various
ports associations to develop a method for facilitating the collation
of this data for the purposes of UK CO2 inventories.
What are the prospects of international agreements to control
and reduce carbon emissions from global shipping, or to bring
it within wider emissions trading schemes? How well is the UK
Government playing a role in developing such agreements?
My understanding is that the IMO decision-making process
is very slow due to its organisational arrangements. However,
the pressure of knowing the EU is likely to regulate in the form
of emissions trading, has somewhat accelerated discussions. Most
importantly, any international agreement to control and reduce
carbon emissions from global shipping must take account of the
underlying evidence base linking emission pathways with 2°C.
See Anderson, Bows & Mander 2008 and Anderson & Bows 2008
below for further details.
What are the prospects for developing new engine technologies
and fuels, as well as more fuel-efficient operations? What more
could the Government do to assist these developments?
In relation to more fuel efficient operations, ports have
a role to play in smooth throughput of the loading and unloading
of ships. On many occasions, ships travel quickly to reach a destination,
only to find they must then queue for several days to unload.
In other words, ships have used more fuel in the transit than
necessary; as the relationship between fuel burn and speed is
a cubed law. I.e. speed is proportional to the cube of fuel consumed.
If there were a mechanism by which port operations could be managed
more efficiently, to ensure ships could know well in advance when
the next available slot for unloading or loading might be, shipping
speeds and hence fuel burn may be reduced. More research needs
to be carried out in this area to overcome the current constraint
of inefficient port operations.
Anderson, K and A Bows, 2007. A response to the Draft Climate
Change Bill's carbon reduction targets. Tyndall Centre Briefing
Note 17, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, from
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/bn17.pdf
Anderson, K and A Bows, 2008. Reframing the climate change challenge
in light of post-2000 emission trends. Philosophical Transactions
A. In press.
Anderson, K, A Bows and S Mander, 2008. From long-term targets
to cumulative emission pathways: Reframing UK climate policy.
Energy Policy. In Press, Corrected Proof.
Corbett, J J and H W Kohler, 2003. Updated emissions from ocean
shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research. 108,(D20, 4650).
Endresen, O, E Sorgard, J Bakke and I S A Isaksen, 2004. Substantiation
of a lower estimate for the bunker inventory: Comment on "updated
emissions from ocean shipping" by James J Corbett and Horst
W Koehler. Journal of Geophysical Research. 109, (doi:10.1029/2004JD004843),
D23302.
Eyring, V, H W Kohler, J v Aardenne and A Lauer, 2005. Emissions
from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years. Journal
of Geophysical Research. 110,(D17305).
September 2008
1
This total will itself vary depending on the estimate used for
the international bunker CO2 Back
|
