Carbon Order

Shipping

 Figure 1: World seaborne trade by type as a percent of total ton-miles


Figure 1: World seaborne trade by type as a percent of total ton-miles

SOURCE: 'Marine Shipping', Centre for Climate Solutions (downloaded 20.07.15)

 

Shipping, world trade and the reduction of CO2 emissions, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2014

 Figure 2: Estimated CO2 release for total and international shipping emissions

Figure 2: Estimated CO2 release for total and international shipping emissions

SOURCE: Shipping and Climate Change: Scope for unilateral action.  Paul Gilbert, Alice Bows and Richard Starkey, University of Manchester, August 2010

 Figure 3: Projections of CO2 emissions from international maritime transport. Bold lines are business as usual scenarios, thin lines represent efficiency controls, or both.


Figure 3: Projections of COemissions from international maritime transport. Bold lines are business as usual scenarios, thin lines represent efficiency controls, or both.
 
 SOURCE: Countries fail to set shipping climate target.  The Carbon Brief 14 May 2015


 Five cross sector gobal CO2 mitigation scenarios plus three scenario/projections for shipping CO2 emissions. The red scenario is the B1 SRES scenario with a very high probability of exceeding the 2oC future.  The blue scenario is produced by the Committee on Climate Change and has the highest probability of not exceeding 2oC of all their scenarios.  The four scenarios other than SRES are characterised as providing a reasonable chance of not exceeding 2oC


Figure 4: Five cross sector gobal COmitigation scenarios plus three scenario/projections for shipping CO2 emissions. The red scenario is the B1 SRES scenario with a very high probability of exceeding the 2oC future.  The blue scenario is produced by the Committee on Climate Change and has the highest probability of not exceeding 2oC of all their scenarios.  The four scenarios other than SRES are characterised as providing a reasonable chance of not exceeding 2oC


SOURCE: Shipping and climate change: scope for unilateral action. Paul Gilbert, Alice Bows, Richard Starkey, University of Manchester August 2010



 Figure 5: CO2 emissions trajectories for international shipping consistent with a 2oC temperature rise (blue curve) and a 1.5oC temperature rise (red curve). The trajectories assume emissinos as in the reference scenario from the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 to 2020, followed by constant reductions, with the year-on-year reduction determined by the remaining CO2 emissions budget of 33Gt and 18Gt, respectively.

 

Figure 5: COemissions trajectories for international shipping consistent with a 2oC temperature rise (blue curve) and a 1.5oC temperature rise (red curve). The trajectories assume emissions as in the reference scenario from the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 to 2020, followed by constant reductions, with the year-on-year reduction determined by the remaining CO2 emissions budget of 33Gt and 18Gt, respectively.

SOURCE: CO2 Targets, Trajectories and Trends for International Shipping (Ref 10)



 Figure 6a and 6b: Estimation of trends in CO2 trajectory and associated target operational CO2 intensity trajectory consistent with 1.5oC


Figure 6a and 6b) 

SOURCE: CO2 Targets, Trajectories and Trends for International Shipping (Ref 10)



 Figure 7a and 7b: Estimation of trends in CO2 trajectory and associated target operational CO2 intensity trajectory consistent with  2oC

 

Figure 7a and 7b


SOURCE: CO2 Targets, Trajectories and Trends for International Shipping (Ref 10)



 Figure 8a and 8b:


Figure 8

SOURCE: CO2 Targets, Trajectories and Trends for International Shipping (Ref 10)

Figures 6 - 8: Estimation of trends in CO2 trajectory and associated target operational CO2 intensity trajectory consistent with 1.5oC (6a and 6b) and 2oC (7a and 7b)
 

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

Options for improving vessel efficiency include:

  • Engine Design: Technologies exist that can reduce ship engine emissions by potentially 40%.

  • The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), mandating energy efficiency improvement, represents an opportunity for companies which have invested heavily in R&D over recent years. The UK-flagged Marco Polo illustrated below exemplifies current state-of-the-art innovation.
     

 Marco Polo Vessel Features
 

  • Marine coating, which by preventing the friction arising from organisms such as shells and algae adhering to the hull, can reduce fuel consumption by up to 9%. Heat-reflective paint can also reduce the need for air conditioning

  • Skysails, with an emissions-reduction potential of up to 35%. Some 3000 ships will have installed this technology by 2020.

DAC PLANT REQUIREMENTS

EOR: global oil consumption by the shipping sector averaged 286m tonnes/year over the period 2007-12. This is projected to double  to 572m tonnes/year by 2050, even allowing for a 50% reduction in carbon intensity. Existing consumption will therefore need to decrease by 286/30 ie 9.53mt/year. Multiplying this by 7.46 yields the equivalent in barrels ie 71.11m bbl/year. A 286mt increase over 30 years equates to an average additional consumption of 143/30 x 7.46 ie 35.5m bbls annually. Combined, these two sets of plant requirement total 106m bbls a year. Dividing this by 2 to allow for 50% decarbonisation yields 53 bbls/year. Reduction of 53m bbls of emissions per annum would require 27 DAC plants. To this should be added the plant requirement for sequestration only (27 plants), making a grand total of 54 plants/year

SEQUESTRATION: Adopting the approximation of 1GT/year CO2 emissions, rising to 2 Gt/year by 2050 (assuming, as previously, a 50% reduction in carbon intensity from operational and technical improvements). Existing emission levels would require the construction of  1000/30 ie thirty three 1 m tonne plants annually to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. In addition, however, emissions growth of a further 1 Gt by 2050 (with average additional emissions of half this figure) yields a requirement for an extra 1000/30 ie 33 plants per year. Combining the two annual figures produces a total requirement of 66 plants a year to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

INTRODUCTION

The international shipping industry is responsible for the carriage of about 90% of world trade, and is vital to the functioning of the global economy. World seaborne trade is expected to grow from circa $10 billion tonnes in 2015 to $17 billion tonnes by 2030 (1) and potentially 23 bn tonnes by 2060 (2). It involves some 103,392 ships (>100GT, 2011 statistic) registered in 150 nations (3) plying between 4,664 ports in 196 countries (4). Figure 1 shows the composition of world seaborne trade in terms of ton-miles of shipping.

CURRENT EMISSIONS

In comparison with other modes of transport, shipping is extremely efficient. Measured in terms of gms CO2 per tonne per km, the figures are as follows:  very large container ships, 3; oil tankers, 5.9; bulk carriers, 7.9,  These compare to 80 for trucking and 435 for air freight (5).

Estimates of the contribution of shipping to global CO2 emissions differ due to the application of varying methodologies. A 2010 report from the University of Manchester (6) referred to ‘a very high degree of uncertainty in global international CO2 estimates for shipping varying by over 50% depending on the method chosen…and may already be a larger proportion of the global total than released by the aviation sector’. The report identified eleven top-down and bottom-up apportioning methods and, within the former, three approaches based on international bunker fuel sales, global fleet activity, and data on regional ship movements. The range of resulting estimates for CO2 emissions are shown in Figure 2.

According to the UNFCC, global shipping produced 2.2% of the world’s total GHG emissions in 2012, compared to 2.8% in 2007, with total shipping emissions also reducing by 10% over the same period, and a further 20% reduction in COper tonne km projected by 2020 (7). Other sources estimate present and future contributions to global GHG levels to be higher.  

For the period 2007-2012, the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 (8), cites 3.1% of annual global CO2 and 2.8% of annual GHGs on a CO2e basis, representing 1,015 and 1,036 million tonnes respectively. Average annual fuel consumption ranged from 247 million to 325 million tonnes, reflecting top-down and bottom-up methodologies and, correlated with these figures, CO2e emissions of 739-795 million tonnes to 915-1135 million tonnes, again depending on the methodology.

FUTURE EMISSIONS

Projections for the future are also diverse (see figure 3).

Sustainalytics (9) warns that emissions are expected to double from the current 3% by 2050, which ‘without significant gains in energy efficiency may result in shipping being responsible for 6% of the world’s GHG emissions by 2020 and 15% by 2050.

The 2014 IMO study referred to above projects a 50-250% increase by 2050 under various scenarios. Further action on efficiency can mitigate emissions growth, but all scenarios bar one project emissions to be higher in 2050 than 2012.

The 2010 University of Manchester report similarly warned that continued growth in CO2 emissions from shipping under a range of emission scenarios would ‘either exceed or consume a very significant proportion of the available [carbon] budget by 2050 … and is not therefore compatible with the goal of having a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change’

A May 2015 paper co-authored between UCL and the University of Manchester (10) as part of the Shipping in Changing Climates project derives CO2 budgets for international shipping consistent with global CO2 budgets with a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2oC and 1.5oC, and explores what reductions in CO2 intensity (in particular of shipping’s Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator, EEOI) are needed to keep within these budgets against a backdrop of continuing growth, and recent trends in the sector’s CO2 intensity (see Table 1

Year

2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2oC scenario
emissions (Mt CO2)

870 721 572 423 274

1.5oC scenario
emissions (Mt CO2)

870 498 126 0 0

Table 1: Maximum CO2 emissions from shipping sector under 1.5oC and 2.0oC scenarios
SOURCE: CO2 Targets, Trajectories and Trends for International Shipping (Ref.10)


The 2oC reference scenario provides for cumulative emissions over the period 2011 to 2100 of 1428 Gt CO2. For 1.5oC, the corresponding figure is 773 Gt. The authors note that this number is significantly above the headline range given in the IPCC’s AR5 Synthesis Report (11).  Apportioning the same share of the global budget represented by shipping’s current percentage contribution to CO2 emissions produces a budget of 33 Gt CO2 under the 2oC scenario and 18Gt under the 1.5oC scenario. Stylised emissions trajectories are shown in Figure 5.

 

Using the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 reference scenario to 2020, decreasing thereafter, the 2oC budget is exhausted in 2079, and the 1.5oC budget in 2044. Keeping within these carbon budgets must take place despite the fourfold increase in emissions projected under this scenario.


The study then focuses on the implications of the target CO2 trajectory for just three types of ship: container ships, tankers and bulk carriers, representing 62% of international shipping’s CO2 emissions in 2012 (see figures 6a & 6b).   In order to remain within a given CO2 budget, the CO2 intensity per unit of transport work, measured in tonnes per nautical mile and indicated by the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI), will need to reduce. The demand scenario is taken from the Third IMO GHG Study, with sub-category indicator variables for each of the three ship types based on IPCC RCP 2.6 (the only RCP scenario consistent with limiting global warming below 2oC). Demand trajectories are shown in figures 7a & b.


Figures 6-8 highlight three interacting trajectories for the three ship types: the demand trajectories, the fleet’s CO2 trajectories and the operational CO2 intensity (EEOI) trajectories, both for 2oC and 1.5oC budgets.

 

Finally, the paper examines three scenarios for operational CO2 intensity (speed and utilisation) to test and illustrate the sensitivities of technical CO2 intensity. Insight into the future requirements of ship design can be obtained by combining the aggregate EEOI trajectories with the assumptions in Table 2. The results in terms of EETI (a proxy for technical CO2 intensity or technical efficiency) can be seen in figures 4, 5 and 6. The required aggregate EETI by 2050 in the 2oC scenario ranges from 25% of the 2012 value (A) to 10% (C). The 1.5% scenarios all require more rapid change, reducing to 50-25% of the 2012 values of EETI by 2030, depending on speed and utilisation.

 

Scenario

Speed

Utilisation

A

Steady decrease in operating speed of 10% per decade Highest values during (2007-12)

B

Constant at 2012 level Highest values during (2007-12)

C

Constant at 2007 levels Lowest values during (2007-2012)

Table 2  CO2 Targets, Trajectories and Trends for International Shipping (Ref.10)

The sensitivity of the required EETI to the operational assumptions (speed and utilization) can also be clearly seen by contrasting the EETI in the different scenarios in the year 2020. The difference between the scenarios being that the aggregate EETI can be either increasing or approximately staying constant (Scenario A), or it will need to undergo rapid reduction (Scenario C) – in other words if speeds return to 2007 levels and utilization remains low, a much greater reduction is required in the EETI to compensate.

EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROSPECTS

Shipping is facing a period of great change. An element of decoupling of emissions from tonne-nm during the period 2007-12, new regulations on energy efficiency and emissions intensity (EEDI and SEEMP), and the potential for rapid technological development in many cases exceeding required EEDIs give some cause for optimism. However, there remains 'a discrepancy between global climate change targets and international shipping’s ability to deliver a proportionate contribution to that objective' (12) in the context of the projected fourfold overall growth by 2050. The scale of this gap is so large, and the consequences of failure to avoid dangerous climate change so great, that it requires ‘urgent attention’ (13).

International shipping was excluded from the Paris accord and the IMO has been criticised for failing to include carbon in the recently agreed sulphur emissions cap, delaying potential measures to reduce carbon to 2023 (13a).


The University of Manchester study referred to in the foregoing outlines how the latest IPCC reports provide a clear constraint on total CO2 emissions and illustrate that total emissions must peak soon and then undergo a rapid and sustained decline. The 2C target requires 'at least a halving of international shipping’s CO2 emissions on 2012 levels by 2050, and to have zero emissions by 2080. A more stringent 1.5C target requires a halving of emissions by 2035 and carbon neutrality by 2045.


As shown in the Manchester paper, EEOI and EETI trajectories for the three ship types (tanker, bulk carriers and container ships) that constitute the majority (62%) of CO2 emissions imply an average EEOI for the 2C target of 50% of 2012 levels by 2030 and 10% of 2012 levels by 2050 and for the 1.5C target 25% of 2012 levels by 2030, just 15 years from now. This is significantly more stringent than currently discussed levels (14).  Uncertainties in the evolution of operational CO2 intensity (e.g. speed and utilisation) introduce significant variability to the scale of the technical challenge.


Strategies for reducing shipping’s GHG emissions can be categorized as operational, technological and alternative fuels. Combined, these could reduce emissions by 62% compared to BAU projections by 2050, ignoring the impact of sector growth (12). See side panel for detail.

 

POTENTIAL FOR DECARBONISATION THROUGH DAC

DAC has the potential to entirely decarbonise the shipping sector cost-effectively in three decades.


Adopting a decarbonisation trajectory similar to the most stringent identified in the UCL/University of Manchester study (18) referred to above, of 100% emissions reduction by 2050; assuming operational, and technical improvements achieving a 50% decrease in emissions intensity over this timeframe; and a quadrupling of market demand, results in annual emissions of circa 2Gt by mid-century. Reducing this to zero over the 30-year timeframe from 2020 necessitates yearly reductions of around 66m tonnes. This could be achieved in one or more of three ways:


EOR: oil extracted using atmospheric rather than fossil CO2 for enhanced recovery can have a carbon intensity 53% lower than the conventional equivalent. Assuming a commodity price of $40/tonne for the DAC CO2, oil with 53% reduced carbon intensity (CI) would cost an additional $120/tonne CO2 (net of the $40/tonne commodity value assuming an overall value of $160/tonne CO2).   This woudl increase the price of the oil by $48/bbl to $105bbl – taking per barrel prices ($57 as at 20.07.15) to $107. Adjusting this to yield a 50% reduction in carbon intensity, brings the price close to $100/bbl. Blending with conventional fuel to achieve a progressive reduction in CO2 emissions eases the transition to 50% CI over a three decade timeframe.


Eliminating CO2 emissions altogether would require the remaining 50% in emissions per barrel (circa 200 kg/bbl) to be offset through sequestration of an equivalent amount. At $160/tonne, this would equate to a further additional $32/bbl ($160/2.5 x 50%).  Adding this to the $100/bbl cost above yields a combined cost of $132/bbl. Given that this would be in the context of a progressive efficiency improvement ultimately double that of current levels, the long term impact would be roughly neutral in terms of fuel costs.


SEQUESTRATION: The second option would rely solely on sequestration to offset carbon emissions, at a cost of $160/tonne. Net of efficiency improvements, this results in an approximate doubling of fuel costs over the thirty year period, again compensated for by a twofold improvement in fuel efficiency.  Once again, it is effectively cost-neutral.


AIR-TO-FUELS: Finally, there is the option of zero-carbon fuels synthesized from DAC CO2 and water electrolysis. With projected costs of $1.00/litre by 2020, assuming current fuel consumption globally of 286m tonnes/year (average of 247 and 325m tonnes/year referred to above) (18), and allowing for a 50% improvement in efficiency, meeting this consumption through A2F marine diesel would cost $165bn (143m tonnes x 1150 litres per tonne x $1.20), compared to present costs of $161bn (286m tonnes x $563/tonne), representing a 2.5% increase over 30 years - a negligable annual increment, with the additional benefit of meeting the 2020 sulphur emissions cap of  0.5%.  Again, this would not be commercially challenging.


DAC PLANT REQUIREMENTS: Plant requirements (ie new additional plants per annum) to achieve carbon neutrality for the entire shipping sector by 2050 for each of the above options are around 50 plants a year (see side panel for background calculations).


The additional costs of Decarbonisation can be addressed in three ways:

 

  1. the additional costs of zero-carbon fuel can be accommodated via improved fuel efficiency.
  2. the costs could be passed on to customers in small increments over the 30-year transition period, or
  3. in the alternative, or in addition, shipping operators could internalize zero-carbon fuel in their value chain. Return on capital employed (ROCE) for the shipping sector as a whole ranged from 10% in 2008 to -2% in 2012 (average 2.2%). A 1m tonne/year DAC plant is projected at 20% IRR for application in the EOR market, and a similar level of return for AFS. By capitalizing on its global purchasing power in the fuels market, the sector could turn its exposure on fuel costs into a positive and leverage this to third-party debt-fund DAC plants secured against collateralized forward-purchase fuel supply contracts, improving both fuel security and ROCE. At the 54 plants per annum build rate necessary to fully decarbonise the sector by 2050, the capital cost would be $27-36bn/year.


The game-changing potential of DAC for global shipping needs to be recognized and, to facilitate this, Carbon Order is seeking to assemble a consortium of shipping interests and representative organizations to examine the scope of opportunity from a technical, market, economic and regulatory perspective.

'With the current global trend towards a reduction of air emissions from all sectors, the shipping industry is experiencing increased pressure from stakeholders in general, and regulators in particular, to tackle its emissions and improve its energy efficiency. Emissions from shipping currently represent 3% of the world’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the industry’s share is increasing. A continued increase in international marine transport without any significant gains in energy efficiency may result in shipping being responsible for 6% of the world’s GHG emissions by 2020 and 15% by 2050'. 

Emission Reduction in the Shipping Industry: Regulations, Exposure and Solutions. Jean-Floent Helfre & Pedro Andre Couto Boot, Sustainalytics, July 2013

'the scale of the discrepancy between targets commensurate with global climate change objectives and the industry’s projected emissions scenarios is so large, and the risk of negative consequences of failing to avoid dangerous climate change so great, that clear and careful management of the required transition requires urgent attention…..total emissions must peak soon and then undergo a rapid and sustained decline. The 2°C target requires at least a halving of international shipping’s CO2 emissions on 2012 levels by 2050, and to have zero carbon emissions by 2080. A more stringent 1.5°C target requires a halving of emissions by 2035, and carbon neutrality by 2045.

Due to expectations of rising transport demand, the 2°C target implies that the fleet aggregate average EEOI will need to be approximately 50% of 2012 levels by 2030 and 10% of 2012 levels by 2050. The 1.5 degree scenario requires aggregate average EEOI to be 25% of 2012 levels by 2030, just 15 years from now. This is significantly more stringent than currently discussed levels

Regardless of whether 1.5°C or 2°C, … the levels of aggregate average EETI improvement by 2050 are well beyond those currently being debated. As such, they will require careful targeting, planning and coordination of a global industry, and with just 35 years to reach the goal, coupled with the constraints placed by a CO2 budget, rather than long-term end-point framing, and a ship’s service life currently a similar length of time, this planning and coordination cannot start soon enough’.

CO2 Targets, Trajectories and Trends for International Shipping. Smith, T. W. P, Traut, M. , Bows-Larkin, A., Anderson K., McGlade, C and Wrobel, P.  Shipping in Changing Climates, University College of London/University of Manchester 12.05.15

'new study claims that container ships built in 2013 were, on average, 8% less fuel-efficient than those delivered in 1990, while cars and aircraft had shown significant improvements in the same period.
Commissioned by Brussels-based Seas At Risk environmental lobby group, the study challenges the claims of ocean carriers that their ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) are the most fuel-efficient boxships ever built. It found that newbuild bulk carriers were the least efficient in the commercial shipping sector, burning 10% more bunker fuel per km travelled than a quarter of a century ago. For tankers and containerships, the average fuel consumption per available tonne km was 8% higher. The paper argues that, despite the lower unit cost benefit from operating ULCVs, there is still a need for design improvements, and that the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) standards for new ships should be reviewed and tightened accordingly.'

New mega-boxships not as fuel-efficient as those delivered 25 years ago, claim. Mike Wackett, The Loadstar. 16.04.15

Strategies for reducinG shipping GHGS

OPERATIONAL:

There is considerable potential for reducing emissions within the shipping sector at little or no cost.  Immediate reductions are available from all ships by reducing speed: decreasing the speed of a container ship by 3 knots (3.5mph), for instance, reduces the resistance of the ship’s hull against the water by 50%. However, reducing speed also reduces the capacity of a ship fleet, therefore requiring more frequent trips and/or greater utilization.

SHIP EFFICIENCY:

Technological options include larger ship sizes, hull and propeller optimization, more efficient engines and novel low-resistant hull coatings. Doubling ship size can increase efficiency by as much as 30%. Fleet upgrading with larger vessels is ultimately constrained by canal sizes, harbour depths and port cargo handling equipment. Replacing current diesel engines with smaller diesel-electric and combined cycle systems would improve efficiency across a greater range of speeds. Advanced coatings include special polymers and air bubbles, see section Technological Developmentin panel opposite

ALTERNATIVE FUELS:

Replacing present-generation heavy fuel oil with less carbon intensive marine diesel (potential emissions savings 4-5%) or liquefied natural gas (15%) in the near to medium term, and a longer term shift to renewables (eg sails, which can reduce emissions by up to 35%), or solar pv and hydrogen fuel cells would progressively reduce GHG emissions by 38% relative to BAU by 2050.

COSTS:

The costs of these mitigation options are not well identified. Estimates of a carbon price necessary to induce the necessary operational changes vary from $36 to $200 per tonne CO2. The costs of fuel switching are little documented, a transition also hampered by the low cost of heavy oil relative to alternatives such as LNG, modified diesel or biofuels.

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT:

The current prognosis for radical emissions reduction through regulatory initiatives is not encouraging. Mandatory measures adopted in 2011 and in force from 1st January 2013 required ships to be 10% more efficient in terms of CO2 intensity by 2020, rising to 20% by 2025 and 30% by 2030, monitored through self-administered energy efficiency plans. Projected savings are 263m tonnes COa year by 2030, relative to BAU (14). However, as emphasized in the foregoing, market growth will counter these savings several-fold by 2050.

Fleet activity in the period 2007-2012 demonstrates widespread adoption of slow steaming. The average reduction relative to design speed was 12%, and the average reduction in daily fuel consumption was 27%, with many ship types and categories exceeding this average. Reductions in daily consumption by some oil tankers was 50%, and by some container ships, 70% (compensated to some degree by more days at sea) (15).


 Upcoming Shipping Regulations

Emission Reduction in the Shipping Industry: Regulations, Exposure and Solutions. Jean-Floent Helfre & Pedro Andre Couto Boot, Sustainalytics, July 2013


 


Shipping, world trade and the reduction of CO2 emissions, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2014


 CO2 Reduction from EEDI Baseline


Emission Reduction in the Shipping Industry: Regulations, Exposure and Solutions. Jean-Floent Helfre & Pedro Andre Couto Boot, Sustainalytics, July 2013
 

Whilst industry representatives recognize that further action is necessary, attempts to develop a global policy framework to reduce emissions have floundered. In depth discussions for a global emissions trading scheme faltered in 2013, despite support from many countries -- including the US, Japan, Norway, France, the UK, Denmark and Nigeria. Most recently, in May 2015, a proposal by the Marshall Islands (with the world’s third largest shipping registry) for the shipping sector to adopt ‘a quantifiable and ambitious’ target to reduce emissions in line with keeping the global temperature increase below 1.5C (16) failed to secure the backing of the IMO, with the result that the UN body was unable to offer an emissions reduction target toward the climate agreement at COP 21, Paris (17).

'Shipping has a carbon footprint equivalent to Germany or Japan.  Under business as usual, the IMO’s own research shows shipping emissions are set to rise 50-250% by 2050, as a growing population boosts demand.  With countries targeting emissions cuts, shipping’s share of the emissions space will grow even faster – up to 14%.  The global fleet must get at least twice as efficient by 2030 if shipping is to play its part in a 2oC world '

UN shipping body shelves emissions target. Marshall Islands plea for climate action falls on deaf ears at IMO, leaving CO2 to rise unchecked. Responding to Climate Change, 13.05.15