At the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a proposal put forward by Norway has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups, notably Faig Abbasov of the NGO Transport & Environment. The proposal, if implemented, could potentially hinder global efforts to decarbonize the shipping industry and make its transition to cleaner fuels more equitable, according to Splash247
The analogy drawn by Abbasov likens Norway’s proposal to a flawed dietary plan. Just as a dietician’s plan allowing unrestricted eating in the evenings could offset progress made during the day, Norway’s plan fails to address upstream emissions associated with alternative fuels in shipping.
Last year, the IMO committed to eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping by 2050, with significant reductions targeted by 2030 and 2040. This included the development of regulatory policies to facilitate the transition, such as technical fuel standards and carbon pricing mechanisms.
Central to this effort is the Fuel GHG Standard (GFS), aimed at encouraging ships to adopt lower-emission fuels. However, for such a mechanism to be effective, it must incorporate a life-cycle accounting (LCA) system. This ensures that emissions associated with a fuel’s production, transportation, and usage are taken into consideration.
Abbasov highlights various examples to illustrate the importance of LCA. For instance, while some fuels may appear cleaner when used onboard ships, their production processes could result in significant emissions. Ignoring these upstream emissions, as proposed by Norway and others, could distort the true environmental impact of alternative fuels.
Critics argue that such a proposal sends the wrong signal to the industry, encouraging a focus on cheaper, high-emission fuels rather than incentivizing the adoption of genuinely cleaner options. Moreover, they warn that this approach could merely shift the environmental burden from sea to land, exacerbating energy transition challenges faced by many countries, particularly in the developing world.
The IMO, under scrutiny for its slow progress in addressing shipping’s climate footprint, faces mounting pressure to enact meaningful and enforceable policies. While the organization has set ambitious goals, they remain aspirational without concrete measures to support them. The failure to address concerns raised by Norway’s proposal could further impede progress towards a sustainable shipping industry.
