Shipping now also has its “Paris Agreement”. Is it an historic achievement or a collection of weasel words? How did we get here? And what still needs to be done? (thread) (1/19)
Last Friday the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its member states agreed on an Initial GHG Strategy for shipping, which contains a level of ambition and candidate measures to realise the ambition. (2/19)
The level of ambition consists of relative emission targets (carbon intensity) and an absolute emission target of at least 50% reductions by 2050 and pursuing efforts to phasing them out in line with the Paris agreement. (3/19)
Historic? Yes I think so. This actually is quite an achievement, for several reasons: (4/19)
1. The only response of the IMO to the Kyoto Agreement was EEDI, a fairly weak energy efficiency measure for ships. (5/19)
2. The other industry not covered by the Paris Agreement (aviation) only has a voluntary carbon offsetting scheme not an absolute emission reduction target (6/19)
3. An absolute emission target for shipping was unthinkable a few years ago, and even two weeks ago far from certain. (7/19)
4. Moreover, the shift of the US position under Trump emboldened various countries in their nihilism. (8/19)
So yes, this was probably the best possible outcome for all those who wanted shipping to be aligned to the Paris temperature goals - even if the Strategy probably does not quite achieve that. (9/19)
But it provides a clear signal that the sector needs to decarbonise, which will change behaviour of ship owners and drive technological innovation. (10/19)
Also: it is a boost to multilateral solutions - which is all too rare these days (11/19)
So, the IMO Initial GHG Strategy provides a good reason to uncork the champagne - for those who need a reason to uncork champagne. (12/19)
How did this little miracle happen? Probably via a combination of “politicisation” of the debate, the threat of unilateral EU action, effective shaming of laggards and the ample evidence of the potential. (13/19)
Politicisation: the Tony de Brum declaration, pushed by @EmmanuelMacron and @President_Heine was a master stroke: shipping emissions was no longer an arcane topic for shipping technocrats but a strategic political priority. (14/19)
The threat of unilateral action by the EU was real: lack of progress at IMO could lead (and can still lead) to inclusion of shipping in the EU-ETS. EU parliamentarians came to IMO to add some pressure. (15/19)
Effective shaming by the likes of @IMOclimate and extensive coverage in the press on which countries were obstructing progress seem to have worked. Most of the skeptics backed down in the end. (16/19)
Finally, over the last years, ample evidence was provided for the potential of zero-carbon shipping, by innovative ship-owners, by @UMAS_15 @UCL_Energy @lloydsregister and @ITF_Forum This showed that aspirations were technically possible. (17/19)
That said, much remains to be done. Finding agreement on short term measures to reduce emissions will be another hell of a job, not to mention the necessary discussions on carbon pricing. (18/19)
One of the guiding principles of the IMO GHG Strategy is common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). The introduction of CBDR in this context is likely to make discussions on measures complex and heated.
But that will come tomorrow. Today champagne (19/19)
But that will come tomorrow. Today champagne (19/19)
