Distrust and disbelief over carbon

Mark Brownrigg, director general of the UK Chamber of Shipping refutes the arguments and says that including shipping in the EU ETS would be a very different matter to the aviation sector, which has simpler, point to point journeys. “Shipping, on the other hand, isn’t bilateral, it’s multilateral, with as many as six countries at each end of a trade route,” points out Mr Brownrigg. He adds, “Aside from requiring fiendishly complex regulation and potentially negative impact to European trade, fundamentally the regional Emissions Trading Scheme would be very easy to avoid.”

Peter Hinchliffe of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) echoes this point saying “Governments need to understand that in the absence of a global framework for CO2 reduction there is a risk of regional or unilateral measures having a seriously distorting effect on international shipping markets. It would also be much less effective in delivering meaningful reductions in global CO2 as a whole.”

The ICS is also opposed to a proposal, made to the IMO by the Bahamas, which specifies certain CO2 caps for specific ships based on engine size – however, it seems that it may be a ‘stalking horse’ to detract attention from the adoption of a Market Based Measure.

ICS chair, Spyros Polemis explains the fallacy: “If a ship’s CO2 allowance was exceeded during the time period specified, it would have to go off-hire and a second ship chartered as replacement. The problem is compounded by the reality that the fuel consumption of two identical ships can vary dramatically according to trading patterns and other variables such as weather.”

Lastly, its of interest that the UK Chamber has published two documents focusing on how either a carbon trading scheme, or compensation levy could work, although Mr Brownrigg admits there “is some political play” that needs to work itself out between the emerging and mature economies for the debate to move forward.