Shipping may have done enough to fend off political intervention

The shipping world has shown that it can rise to a carbon challenge, so three cheers for the IMO. Well, perhaps two-and-a-half cheers, because this week’s decision was a grudging victory, agreeing to halve CO2 emissions by 2050.

All we can say is that it is a start, but one freighted with importance because it allows marine transport to get on the front foot and leave its defensive position. Let's hope we now see an explosion of creativity, research — and, most importantly, investment.

Today we can prepare to write the story: “Green shipping: a new era”, after the industry finally realised it was supping in the last-chance saloon of political and public opinion.

This agreement should reduce the chances of much tougher regional regulations being imposed by an angry European Commission. The European Union transport commissioner, Violeta Bulc, was pushing for 100% reductions in CO2.

The threat of local legislation has not completely evaporated, but one feels the final target coming out of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting in London will at least buy time for shipping to show it does not need compulsion.

The 50% goal is still a long way from the 100% cuts by 2035 desired by those nation states most threatened by rising sea levels, including one country with big vessel flag connections, the Marshall Islands.

But on the other side, a handful of countries would have happily seen any deal scuppered in an attempt to keep the status quo.

It will be tough for the industry to reach the 50% target from where we stand today, as the International Chamber of Shipping has pointed out. A revolution will be needed in ship design, propulsion and operation. But it will surely happen: just look at what automakers have done since pressure was put on them to produce electric in place of diesel cars. There has been a huge injection of investment into green vehicles from the major marques.

Shipping has been given a bright green signal for investment to pour into research and development, plus practical vessel-building, to prepare our industry for its brave, new world of low carbon.

There are many possible partners to choose from, not least the progressive oil companies such as Shell, which has launched its own transition programme away from fossil fuels.

A lot more has to be done on fine-tuning the energy-­efficiency potential of bulbous bows, slimmer hulls and lighter materials, while advances need to be made on new fuels so that we can move away from carbon-heavy bunkers.

The number of orders for ships using LNG for their main engines is increasing, but plenty of work lies ahead to make this fuel readily available, and hammer down whether the CO2 savings are really significant from using this fuel. Opinions differ widely.

We will also need urgent monitoring to ensure methane leaks around LNG operations are kept to a minimum. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and there could be growing opposition to the use of LNG unless this is dealt with.

What about fuel cells, electric and even solar and wind-powered ships or onboard equipment? There have been experiments with many of these potential power sources but we are a long way from commercialisation.

And should nuclear power be confined to a niche propulsion system for naval vessels and the odd Russian icebreaker? Nuclear power has fallen out of favour in many parts of Western Europe but are there opportunities at sea?

China is spending $3.3bn on a project investigating two prototype molten-salt nuclear reactors for aircraft carriers and merchant ships. There are important issues of cost, safety and radioactive waste storage that require serious debate if nuclear is to gain traction as a ship propulsion choice.

So there is a lot to think about and not that much time. The sooner a tangible road map to 2050 can be created, the better.

Shipping has been searching for years to transform its image in the public eye. This IMO-approved green plan is a golden opportunity.