Decarbonization – What Do We Do Now?

Shipping has made dramatic progress in reducing emissions in less than twenty years. While the tonnage of the world fleet has nearly doubled, total GHG emissions are now about the same as they were in 2008. 

In 2023, the IMO agreed a new ambition for shipping: net zero “by or around” 2050 with a first emission reduction checkpoint in 2030 looking to reduce GHG emissions by at least 20% (striving for 30%) from the 2008 level.  Given what happened last October, delaying adoption of a Net Zero Framework (NZF) and the positions of certain IMO member states, there is growing doubt as to whether there is any hope for the existing framework to survive. Certainly, the 2030 checkpoint reduction targets for total emissions seem well beyond reach. 

There has been a lot of talk of pragmatism – and from BV included for some time: and we do need to be pragmatic. We also need to be responsible as we face the complexity of a world where much has changed. And we write as we enter the fourth week of a new Iranian conflict preventing and endangering ship movements, convulsing energy markets, and leading many of us to question assumptions about what our priorities must be.

So, what can we do now?

Classification, necessarily, must stand apart from the politics of this. Bureau Veritas takes responsibility for the IACS Chair in July, and we wish to underscore the non-political role of class. We think it is also necessary for classification and for BV, in our unique role as both a class society and a testing, inspection and certification giant – active across all energy and fuel value chains, to provide our objective perspective and practical expertise to help with the implementation of global decarbonization frameworks. 

Two things are very clear to us:

• Firstly, there is a genuine risk that continuing with the NZF as it now stands will prejudice any chance of a global framework that is both practical (and supports an LNG to bio/eLNG pathway) and that can be agreed by member states. 

• Secondly, should a NZF not be adopted, the further development of fragmented, national or regional ETS schemes and fuel standard requirements is likely.  

So, if we want an international framework that can be adopted and can then enter into force effectively, proposals need to be put forward and we need to see what can be achieved. The limited adoption of alternative fuels in the bulker and tanker sector indicates a lack of confidence that green fuels will be available where they are needed, combined with uncertainty over price. 

We believe in the need to decarbonize shipping, but the transition will take time. Shipping cannot decarbonize faster than the rest of the global economy. Pockets and niches can move faster but, overall, it’s tough to see how shipping can go it alone. 

We need to consider all solutions that may be tabled.

We repeat the importance of the need to make renewed efforts to further improve energy efficiency and use the fuels available now.

Many of the answers lie in operational decisions and opportunities, such as wind and biofuels; systemic change, like Blue-Visby’s platform to address “sail fast, then wait”; as well as customer and charterer support to make shipping more efficient.

Not only can ship and fleet greenhouse gas intensity be reduced, but if we do not, we are delaying action and wasting fuel. 

We have said before that we will be surprised by our changing world and we need to be prepared for that – and that is also pragmatic. Some developments we anticipate now to be certainties may evolve much more slowly than we expect or hope.

Others, much faster – or never. It is now vital that we reach an international agreement, together, on the best way forward to support global action. Classification is ready to support that ambition particularly, as usual, with the detail needed to translate ambition into action. 

Written by Alex Gregg-Smith, President, Marine & Offshore, Bureau Veritas