Next week’s International Maritime Organization’s MEPC81 will address a proposal concerning the IMO Fuel GHG (GFS) standard, which could potentially lead to a significant increase in global shipping’s CO2 emissions without valid reason.
The proposal involves determining whether the CO2 emissions associated with fuel production, known as the well-to-tank (WtT) emissions, should be included in the carbon footprint of fuels, says an article published on loadstar website.
Summary
- MEPC81 at the International Maritime Organization will address a proposal concerning the IMO Fuel GHG (GFS) standard, which could impact global shipping’s CO2 emissions.
- The proposal involves determining whether the CO2 emissions associated with fuel production, known as the well-to-tank (WtT) emissions, should be included in the carbon footprint of fuels.
- Several IMO member states advocate for incorporating a lifecycle assessment of new fuels, including both well-to-tank (WtT) and tank-to-wake (TtW) calculations, into the total carbon footprint. However, countries like Norway, Saudi Arabia, China, and Brazil oppose this approach.
- These opposing countries intend to convert their oil, gas, and coal reserves into ‘grey’ versions of hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol using industrial processes like steam reforming, which generate more CO2 during production than burning fossil fuels in ships.
Incorporating Life Cycle Assessment
Several IMO member states advocate for incorporating a lifecycle assessment of new fuels, including both well-to-tank (WtT) and tank-to-wake (TtW) calculations, into the total carbon footprint. However, countries like Norway, Saudi Arabia, China, and Brazil oppose this approach.
Grey Fuels And Their Implications
These opposing countries intend to convert their oil, gas, and coal reserves into ‘grey’ versions of hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol using industrial processes like steam reforming. Despite being chemically identical to their ‘green’ counterparts, these grey fuels generate more CO2 during production than burning fossil fuels in ships.
Impact On CO2 Emissions
If fossil (‘grey’) ammonia were to replace fossil VLSFO as the primary ship fuel, it could increase shipping’s CO2 emissions by 26% compared to conventional fossil ship fuels, rather than reducing them. Similarly, adopting grey ammonia on a large scale would lead to an 18% global increase in CO2 emissions.
Market Distortion And Investor Uncertainty
Faïg Abbasov from Transport & Environment warns that failing to factor WtT emissions into IMO targets risks promoting fuels that exacerbate rather than alleviate the climate crisis. Assigning zero- and low-emission values to grey fuels, as proposed by Norway and others, lacks scientific justification and could deter investors from the maritime sector.
Conclusion
MEPC81’s decision regarding the inclusion of WtT emissions in IMO targets will significantly impact the future of shipping fuels. Advocates stress the importance of considering the full lifecycle emissions to avoid promoting fuels that worsen the climate crisis, while opponents argue for leniency toward grey fuels, potentially distorting the market and causing uncertainty for investors.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe
Source: loadstar
