theoretical economic perspective that does not take into account transaction or
enforcement costs, this makes sense. Performance standards allow participants to
find the least-cost method of reducing emissions, whereas technical standards
essentially “pick a winner” and can thus potentially stymie innovation and narrow
the range of possible means of reducing emissions. Performance standards, however,
are generally much more difficult to enforce. This is a special challenge in the case of
shipping emissions as there is no single entity to carry out inspections on the high
seas. Port states and flag states don’t have the capacity and may not have the will to
carry out inspections. New technologies, like remote sensing via satellites, may offer
hope for effective enforcement (Halff et al. 2019).
10.4.4 CO 2 Emissions
All transports accounted for 24% of the world CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion
in 2015 (OECD 2017a). Total shipping emissions reached approximately 938 million
tons CO 2 emissions in 2012 with international shipping representing 85% of this
total. Shipping accountsed for 2.2% of global total CO 2 emissions. Depending on
economic growth and global energy demand, international carbon emission could
increase by 50–250% by 2050 (IMO 2014).
International shipping emissions were notably absent from the Paris Agreement.
CO 2 emissions from international shipping have grown more slowly than international trade. This decoupling reflects increases in shipping efficiency (with slow
steaming, increased size of ships and other operational measures playing a key role
rather than technological innovations). There is presently no global mechanism to
control CO 2 emissions beyond the efficiency standards for new-build ships (Traut
et al. 2018). The Kyoto Protocol mandated its parties to work through the IMO for
emission reductions from international shipping. For international aviation emissions, it mandated the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (UNFCCC
1997). Parts of the shipping industry have argued that shipping should have a more
limited role in emission reductions because of its “vital role” in serving developing
economies (drawing on the notion of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
and Respective Capabilities) and because shipping has fewer opportunities to decarbonize relative to other sectors (ICS 2016).
IMO adopted a mandatory data collection system for fuel consumption of ship in
2016, and in April 2018 the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) adopted an initial strategy on GHG emissions reductions from ships
(IMO 2018). This strategy entails the first global climate framework for shipping
and includes quantitative GHG reduction targets through 2050 as well as a list of
candidate policy measures to help achieve these targets. A key target is to reduce
CO 2 emissions per transport work as an average across international shipping by at
least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while simultaneously pursuing efforts to a total
phase out. Market-based measures (MBMs) are considered as potential measures.
More generally the international community under the auspices of IMO/UNFCCC
160
A. Papandreou et al.
enforcement costs, this makes sense. Performance standards allow participants to
find the least-cost method of reducing emissions, whereas technical standards
essentially “pick a winner” and can thus potentially stymie innovation and narrow
the range of possible means of reducing emissions. Performance standards, however,
are generally much more difficult to enforce. This is a special challenge in the case of
shipping emissions as there is no single entity to carry out inspections on the high
seas. Port states and flag states don’t have the capacity and may not have the will to
carry out inspections. New technologies, like remote sensing via satellites, may offer
hope for effective enforcement (Halff et al. 2019).
10.4.4 CO 2 Emissions
All transports accounted for 24% of the world CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion
in 2015 (OECD 2017a). Total shipping emissions reached approximately 938 million
tons CO 2 emissions in 2012 with international shipping representing 85% of this
total. Shipping accountsed for 2.2% of global total CO 2 emissions. Depending on
economic growth and global energy demand, international carbon emission could
increase by 50–250% by 2050 (IMO 2014).
International shipping emissions were notably absent from the Paris Agreement.
CO 2 emissions from international shipping have grown more slowly than international trade. This decoupling reflects increases in shipping efficiency (with slow
steaming, increased size of ships and other operational measures playing a key role
rather than technological innovations). There is presently no global mechanism to
control CO 2 emissions beyond the efficiency standards for new-build ships (Traut
et al. 2018). The Kyoto Protocol mandated its parties to work through the IMO for
emission reductions from international shipping. For international aviation emissions, it mandated the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (UNFCCC
1997). Parts of the shipping industry have argued that shipping should have a more
limited role in emission reductions because of its “vital role” in serving developing
economies (drawing on the notion of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
and Respective Capabilities) and because shipping has fewer opportunities to decarbonize relative to other sectors (ICS 2016).
IMO adopted a mandatory data collection system for fuel consumption of ship in
2016, and in April 2018 the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) adopted an initial strategy on GHG emissions reductions from ships
(IMO 2018). This strategy entails the first global climate framework for shipping
and includes quantitative GHG reduction targets through 2050 as well as a list of
candidate policy measures to help achieve these targets. A key target is to reduce
CO 2 emissions per transport work as an average across international shipping by at
least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while simultaneously pursuing efforts to a total
phase out. Market-based measures (MBMs) are considered as potential measures.
More generally the international community under the auspices of IMO/UNFCCC
160
A. Papandreou et al.