Kassinger Comments on Shipping GHGs Draws Praise and Criticism

Kassinger says even if the world fleet switched to using sails, the global GHG reduction would be modest. File Image / Pixabay

An article recently published by Ship & Bunker suggesting that the Shipping industry's contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is being overstated, has resulted in some lively debate, and drawn both praise and criticism from the industry and its stakeholders.

The Carbon War Room were among those to reiterate the warnings of a failure to act on emissions, while others rallied around the idea that there was little to be gained from such GHG reductions.

In the article, consultant and veteran industry expert Rudy Kassinger said that even if the entire world fleet switched to zero emissions propulsion technology, the impact on global GHG emissions would be "modest" at best.

"World consumption of petroleum is about 95 million barrels per day (bbl/d). Marine fuel consumption is about 5 million bbl/d. In contrast, light/medium distillate consumption is around 66 million bbl/d, which is mainly gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. That's the 'low hanging' fruit, not the 5 million bbl/d from Marine," he said.

Responding to the article, Kazoil LLC's Dave Kazmierski told Ship & Bunker via email: "Global shipping is, as it says in the article, very efficient. The pollution per ton moved is miniscule. Time for the U.N. to back off of the GHG money grab and allow free markets to move efficiently. The cost of CO2 reduction in particular is ridiculous for absolutely no benefit to the environment.

"Well stated Rudy, proud of you stepping up as a true expert in this field."

Maurice Meehan, Director of Shipping Operations at the Carbon War Room, offered an opposing viewpoint, saying the article "misrepresents the gravity of shipping's contribution of GHG emissions."

"Though excluded from the COP 21 Paris Agreement of 2016, shipping has a crucial role to play in meeting the need to stabilise global temperatures at 2 degrees or less. Shipping's contribution of slightly less than 3% of total global GHGs is equivalent to the total GHG emissions of Germany," said Meehan.

"More crucially, while Germany and other nations are already reducing their GHG emissions and have signed up to the Paris Agreement, shipping's GHG emissions continue to grow without comparable targets. Indeed, as cited in the 3rd IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014, if unabated, shipping is on a trajectory to grow its GHG's by between 50 percent and 250 percent by 2050, depending on future economic growth and energy developments. This would greatly expand and expose shipping's relative carbon footprint as other polluters decarbonise.

"Secondly, to compare shipping's current contribution of just below 3% GHG emissions to the total global fossil fuel consumption is misleading. This assumes a world in which we rely solely upon fossil fuels for our energy supplies. As the world decarbonises, the use of fossil fuels will diminish, and without a clear pathway to decarbonisation, shipping's relative contribution to climate change will increase.

"Finally, downplaying shipping's role in mitigating global GHG emissions does little to drive innovation and inspire the industry to seize on the opportunities that decarbonisation creates:  improving efficiency with new technologies, moving towards low-carbon fuels, enhancing financial security with better decision making, and ultimately increasing cross-industry collaboration and profitability."

Low Hanging Fruit

Meehan was not the only reader to voice discomfort with the idea that shipping might, in effect, be able to take a pass on emissions reduction efforts due to its current cost / benefit balance, and for the record, Kassinger was clear that he was not saying the industry should do nothing.

"We certainly want marine to make every effort to minimize emissions, every bit helps," he told Ship & Bunker in response to some of the comments received about the article.

And while ship efficiency expert Nikos Petrakakos was among those to agree with Kassinger that there were likely greater gains to be made in areas other than Shipping, like Meehan he warned that inaction now could spell trouble down the line.

"Indeed the 2-3% of shipping's GHG impact is nowhere near as a 'low hanging fruit' as other industries like the auto industry for example. But what Dr. Kassinger fails to take into account is the future path of this impact if we fail to act in a similar fashion as the rest of the world. As emissions growth globally will slow, stop, or reverse, our impact would continue to grow in step with the projected global trade and shipping fleet growth," he told Ship & Bunker.

"Some projections show shipping accounting for upwards of 17% of global emissions by 2050. Would that figure be sufficiently impactful?

"Moreover, 'low hanging fruit' is a relative term. Shipping had done very little to improve emissions and efficiency prior to 2012. Unlike other industries that have already done greater steps in that direction, shipping has a great deal of 'low hanging fruit' it can go after with little or no effort or financial strain."

In response, Kassinger notes that the slow speed engines used by shipping are already the most fuel efficient using internal combustion.

"The technology to get cars to go from say 20 mpg to 50 mpg is there, though the cars will be smaller and lighter. Similar improvements are not possible for the big slow speed diesels. In a word, the base case for marine is already very good," Kassinger told Ship & Bunker.

"It's true they may be able to eke out a bit more, but those improvements will be small at best. The big improvements, if any, will not be through more efficient engines, but other things like weather routing, hull / propeller design, and so on."

As it stands, a 0.50% sulfur cap on marine fuel will come into force in 2020, while IMO's most recent efforts to move forward with reducing GHGs at MEPC 71 drew mixed reviews; some hailed the progress as "important" while others said IMO had failed to impress.