housing, agriculture, industry, and automobiles.
83 In one instance the IMO’s 2nd
GHG study was used to imply insouciance in shipping by comparing the aviation
industry’s CO 2 emissions of 650 million tons a year as being marginally over half
shipping’s emissions of 1.12 billion tons a year (based on data up to the year 2008).
84
Industry reaction was understandably forceful.
85 Indeed, such insinuations are
patently unfair when provided the context that shipping carries more than 80% of
world trade by volume compared to aviation’s share of 0.5%.
86 A simplistic arithmetic calculation reveals that while shipping produced 14 million tons of CO 2
emissions for every 1% of total world trade volume during the period covered,
aviation produced 1.3 billion tons of CO 2 to carry the same volume. Taken from
another angle, the air transport industry produced 14.8 tons of CO 2 emissions to
carry 1 ton of freight, while shipping produced only 0.14 ton of CO 2 emissions to
carry 1 ton of freight. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) “Review of Maritime Transport, 2008” puts it thus:
. . . it is estimated that, on average, a container ship (3,700 TEU) consumes 77 times less
energy than a freight aircraft (Boeing 747-400), about 7 times less than a heavy truck and
about 3 times less than rail. Equally, a ship (3,700 TEU ship) is reported to emit over
40 times less CO 2 than a freight aircraft (Boeing 747-400) and about 4 times and 31 per cent
less CO 2 than a heavy truck and rail, respectively. Shipping’s fuel and carbon efficiency per
unit of weight and distance means that any increase in fuel costs and any cost pressure
resulting from climate-led initiatives will likely have less impact on the cost of moving trade
by sea compared to other modes of transport. This is particularly relevant when considering
the critical nature of shipping for international trade, in particular long haul.
87
In other words rather than being an indictment of the environmental performance
of shipping, the more than one billion tons of CO 2 emissions from shipping annually
is a reflection of the global population’s consumption needs and wants. Shipping
remains the most environmentally sustainable means of servicing these needs and
transporting goods between the world’s ports. Nevertheless, relative ratios are small
comfort if nothing is done to arrest the alarming absolute emissions figures for all
modes of transport. Shipping must continue to control air pollution and GHG
emissions.
The maritime sector has gained significant strides since the 1980s when IMO’s
Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) agreed to include the issue of
air pollution in its work programme following a call by North Sea states to initiate
action, “leading to improved quality standards of heavy fuels and to actively support
this work aimed at reducing marine and atmospheric pollution.”
88 Today, 93 states
representing 96.70% of world shipping tonnage are contracting parties to MARPOL
83 Snyder (2005), p. 1065.
84 Bellona (2008).
85 Brownrigg (2008).
86 ICAO et al. (2017), and ATAG (2008).
87 UNCTAD (2008), pp. 28–29.
88 IMO (2019b).
Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Port State Control
541
83 In one instance the IMO’s 2nd
GHG study was used to imply insouciance in shipping by comparing the aviation
industry’s CO 2 emissions of 650 million tons a year as being marginally over half
shipping’s emissions of 1.12 billion tons a year (based on data up to the year 2008).
84
Industry reaction was understandably forceful.
85 Indeed, such insinuations are
patently unfair when provided the context that shipping carries more than 80% of
world trade by volume compared to aviation’s share of 0.5%.
86 A simplistic arithmetic calculation reveals that while shipping produced 14 million tons of CO 2
emissions for every 1% of total world trade volume during the period covered,
aviation produced 1.3 billion tons of CO 2 to carry the same volume. Taken from
another angle, the air transport industry produced 14.8 tons of CO 2 emissions to
carry 1 ton of freight, while shipping produced only 0.14 ton of CO 2 emissions to
carry 1 ton of freight. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) “Review of Maritime Transport, 2008” puts it thus:
. . . it is estimated that, on average, a container ship (3,700 TEU) consumes 77 times less
energy than a freight aircraft (Boeing 747-400), about 7 times less than a heavy truck and
about 3 times less than rail. Equally, a ship (3,700 TEU ship) is reported to emit over
40 times less CO 2 than a freight aircraft (Boeing 747-400) and about 4 times and 31 per cent
less CO 2 than a heavy truck and rail, respectively. Shipping’s fuel and carbon efficiency per
unit of weight and distance means that any increase in fuel costs and any cost pressure
resulting from climate-led initiatives will likely have less impact on the cost of moving trade
by sea compared to other modes of transport. This is particularly relevant when considering
the critical nature of shipping for international trade, in particular long haul.
87
In other words rather than being an indictment of the environmental performance
of shipping, the more than one billion tons of CO 2 emissions from shipping annually
is a reflection of the global population’s consumption needs and wants. Shipping
remains the most environmentally sustainable means of servicing these needs and
transporting goods between the world’s ports. Nevertheless, relative ratios are small
comfort if nothing is done to arrest the alarming absolute emissions figures for all
modes of transport. Shipping must continue to control air pollution and GHG
emissions.
The maritime sector has gained significant strides since the 1980s when IMO’s
Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) agreed to include the issue of
air pollution in its work programme following a call by North Sea states to initiate
action, “leading to improved quality standards of heavy fuels and to actively support
this work aimed at reducing marine and atmospheric pollution.”
88 Today, 93 states
representing 96.70% of world shipping tonnage are contracting parties to MARPOL
83 Snyder (2005), p. 1065.
84 Bellona (2008).
85 Brownrigg (2008).
86 ICAO et al. (2017), and ATAG (2008).
87 UNCTAD (2008), pp. 28–29.
88 IMO (2019b).
Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Port State Control
541