Global warming and, correspondingly, reducing CO2 emissions is one of the most challenging tasks the world faces today. The maritime industry contributed to 2.89% of the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To decrease this share, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) defined, among others, the goal to reduce the carbon intensity of international shipping by 40% until 2030. In this context, the short-term measures recently adopted, in the form of a technical standard (Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index, EEXI) and a rating scheme based on an operational indicator (Carbon Intensity Indicator, CII), mark a crucial step to achieving the mentioned goal. In addition, the EU Commission has recently introduced the FuelEU Maritime Initiative limiting the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of a ship’s energy use incorporating a reduction occurring in a five-year rhythm between 2025 and 2050. The paper investigates the practical options availed to existing containerships of different sizes and technological vintages for meeting the specific EEXI, CII, and GHG intensity reduction requirements imposed by the regulations. The investigation will be based on the actual technical and operational profiles of six sample ships and will consider a set of possible compliance options including, but not limited to, engine power limitation, waste heat recovery system, variable frequency drives, and virtual arrival. The data used originates from noon reports of existing containerships provided by a European industry leader. The ship-specific CO2 emission reduction potentials required for the impact assessment result from either literature or actual data-based calculations. Financial data is used for investigating the economic impact of the reduction requirements. Conclusions drawn include an operational advantage that pre-EEDI ships enjoy when applying engine power limitation (EPL) for EEXI compliance, the occurrence of payback periods exceeding ship lifetimes, and an estimate of the effect that onshore power supply can have on complying with the FuelEU Maritime Initiative.
The 0.1% limit in sulphur content within Sulphur Emission Control Areas as of 1st January 2015 requires that ship operators either use pricier ultra-low sulphur fuel oil, or alternatively install abatement technologies through substantial capital investments. A part of the resulting higher operating costs are passed on to shippers resulting in increased freight rates. These may lead to modal shifts towards rail or road options competing with Ro-Ro operators. Due to the unexpectedly low fuel prices in the period 2014–2016, Ro-Ro operators were relatively unharmed by the new limits, but nascent research has shown that if fuel prices increase some Ro-Ro services may not survive. This paper examines a set of policy options that can mitigate or reverse the negative effects of the low-sulphur regulation. The measures include internalizing external costs of transport, repaying fuel surcharges to shippers, subsidizing technological investments of ship operators, or increasing the landbased costs of transport via levies. To compare their efficacy, total costs are calculated for each measure. The results show that the proposed measures can successfully reduce the negative effects of the regulation but this would entail significant costs. A combination of subsidies towards shippers and ship operators is shown to be effective at reversing potential modal shifts and can be crucial in case of high fuel prices in the near future. The findings of this work can assist operators to develop new strategies and improve the resilience of their network, and regulators designing environmental policies that may have negative implications on certain sectors.
This chapter discusses European policies as regards short sea shipping (SSS) and intermodality. To that effect, a broad perspective is mainly taken, as recently there have been numerous policy initiatives in Europe that deal directly or indirectly with both sectors. The chapter takes stock at the situation as regards European ports and SSS and discusses challenges and prospects for the future. The analysis looks into both ports and SSS in a strict sense and other factors that are related, directly or indirectly, and that may have important ramifications. These other factors include EU port deregulation, the role of rail transport, environmental regulations, sulphur regulations, port security, and others. The chapter tries to explain the causes of current problems, investigates cross-linkages and makes suggestions for possible improvements.
Although the existing literature identifies a fuel levy imposed by means of a global agreement as the most efficient policy for carbon pricing in the maritime sector, scholars and policy makers have debated the possibility for regional measures to be introduced in case a global agreement cannot be achieved. This debate has highlighted several economic, legal, and political challenges that the implementation of an efficient and effective regional scheme would have to face. This article compares the relative performance of various regional measures for carbon pricing based on the following criteria: jurisdictional basis, data availability, environmental effectiveness and avoidance strategies, impact on competitiveness, differentiation for developing countries, and incentives for reaching a global agreement. The main finding is that, if carefully designed, a cargo-based measure that covers the emissions released throughout the whole voyage to the cargo destination presents various advantages compared with other regional carbon pricing schemes. These advantages have been largely ignored in the literature.