At Stolt Tankers, we have a strong set of partners and collaboration with them — and equally importantly forming new relationships — would be central to any investments that we might make over the coming years.
This article is part of a series written by people across shipping in response to this question about how to deploy a hypothetical TradeWinds Sustainable Shipping Fund:
How, where and why would you invest $1bn for the best return in sustainable shipping, as the industry grapples with the need to cut carbon emissions, improve efficiency and keep cargoes moving in a world facing multiple economic and political challenges? The investment will be made now and ideally held for the next seven years to the end of the decade. As an added bonus, give one policy or regulation you would like to implement from 1 January 2023 to benefit shipping?
The scale of the sustainable shipping challenge is simply too great to be successful without a partnership mentality.
No one can claim to have all the answers to making shipping carbon-free today. There is too much uncertainty on what the best choice is for next generation propulsion.
This is one of the reasons that we joined the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping — so that, as a larger group, we can consider and debate all the alternatives to make the shipping industry more sustainable.
Any investment needs to be as future-proof as possible. It is not only about investing in new green technology and fuel for ships, but also the port infrastructure and storage capabilities.
We have committed to reducing our carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, relative to 2008 levels, and we will likely need to have some carbon-neutral ships trading in our fleet to hit that target. We also need to make sure our existing fleet continues to gain in efficiency, and that could be investing in further energy-saving devices or harnessing available technology such as rotor sails in the coming years.
In terms of policies and regulations, what we would like to see as an add-on to the Carbon Intensity Indicator is a “book and claim” approach. For example, we may not be able to correct an E-rated ship because of the trade it is in.
Remember, under the CII, an E-rated ship itself is not necessarily bad. It can simply receive a bad rating because of long port times and short voyages, which are largely dictated by the cargo it is carrying.
Why not allow us to abate that amount of CO2 on another ship in the fleet and credit the savings to the E-rated ship? That would also allow the industry to make the best investment decisions.
Why retrofit expensive technology on an old ship, which may be recycled in five years’ time? Instead, why not encourage operators to install new technology on younger ships where the benefits can be maximised? At the end of the day, emissions are a global problem, and the planet is affected by absolute emissions.
Some $1bn might sound like a huge investment, but without joining together with similar sized contributions from others, when pitted against the challenge of making the maritime industry sustainable, it is really just a drop in the ocean.
