However, this challenge is click here often considered a long-term problem, with targets set
out to 2050 and temperature rises discussed at a 2100 timeframe. This should not be the case; temperatures in 2100 correlate with cumulative emissions over the century and hence failing to implement mitigation measures in the short-term makes the challenge harder if not impossible in the long-term. From a shipping perspective, colleagues at the Tyndall Centre and Sustainable Consumption Institute explored the mitigation required by the industry to reduce emissions in line with international climate change obligations [3]. Despite the urgency for rapid decarbonisation, the sector, particularly through the IMO, has known about the need to globally reduce greenhouse gas emissions since the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997. Here, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change tasked the IMO with limiting emissions from marine bunker fuels [4]; however, in over 15 years, little in the way of meaningful progress has come from this. The only CO2 related policies adopted by the IMO to date is a revised MARPOL ANNEX VI to include the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) [5]. This has been criticised by industry, academics and NGOs alike for being a weak measure that will fail to cut CO2 emissions in absolute terms, at least without complimentary and stringent policy instruments. Implementing a fuel switch to reduce SOx emissions could also provide significant opportunity to also reduce CO2 emissions. After all, a fuel switch that provides a reduction in the carbon intensity of BMS-354825 clinical trial the fuel, taken over the full life-cycle, is a key mechanism for mitigation, alongside combustion and wider efficiency improvements. However, the real take home message from the SEAaT event was that there is little attention being paid to the co-benefits of tackling CO2 and SOx emissions in tandem. If CO2 is not part of the considerations, the result of meeting current regulation could make controlling future CO2 emissions much more of a challenge. The three main options
to reduce sulphur emissions are: low sulphur distillates, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and, SOx scrubbers. If the sector, or at least those impacted by the ECA, is to switch to low sulphur distillates (-)-p-Bromotetramisole Oxalate then, over the full life-cycle, CO2 emissions will increase [6] largely from a rise in the energy required for additional refining. Whilst a switch to LNG could provide emission savings of 7–15% [6], [7] and [8], depending on the level of methane slippage assumed [9], the absolute growth in trade at ∼4% p.a. would mean that any relative emission savings would be undermined within about four to five years [10]. Finally, the use of scrubbers arguably only promotes business as usual for the industry and provides little incentive to move beyond heavy fuel oil altogether. In addition, scrubbers require additional energy to operate, further increasing CO2.