One needs to consider from a shipping company’s perspective, what is the effect on the environment, of the energy used by ships, in light of what is being demanded of the shipping industry at the present time.  In other words, whatever is said about energy for shipping, the effect on the environment is and should be very much part of the discussion.

I have said on a number of occasions over the past few years, that without shipping, half the world would freeze, and the other half would starve.   This is not meant to be a sensationalist statement, but rather a statement of fact and a stark realization.  Over 90% of the world’s trade is carried onboard ships.   One should imagine, therefore, what would happen if ships were to stop even for one day.  The oil that is needed to run our factories, to heat our homes, to run cars, buses, and trains, and to generate electricity would not be delivered.

Shelves in local shops and supermarkets would not display the goods that one buys on a daily basis.  It is too awesome to even contemplate.  One may however well ask, why to make such a statement.  It is because the energy that is needed to run shipping is a requirement by the world at large, it is a necessity that cannot be disputed, and it is because of the demand by the world’s citizens for the services of shipping.  What this means, therefore, is that people and in particular the authorities but also environmental groups, should not be so easy to condemn shipping about its energy use, and consequently its CO2 emissions.  The public and the politicians must look at it from this perspective, a very different perspective from the environmentalists who sometimes have a one-track mind and are blinded by their enthusiasm without giving due consideration to the reasons behind the energy required by shipping.

People forget, although it has been widely publicized, that shipping is the most efficient form of transport in the world.  It is responsible for only 2.7% of emissions globally, in spite of the fact that it carries almost all of the world’s trade.

It is more efficient than air transport, road, or rail, and what is probably not very well known, are the tremendous efficiencies that shipping has already achieved over the past three decades.

There has been an over 30% improvement in the consumption by the engines alone, and a considerable improvement in consumption generally and hence emissions in the overall performance because of the improvements in the design of the hull, the propeller, and other appendages.  In spite of what some people think, shipping has never stood still, even when it was not under pressure by environmentalists as it is today.  In other words, shipping was quietly doing its job in improving efficiency for two main reasons.  One, because shipping people do care about the environment and they always did as they are so close to it, it is their element, and two, because economically it makes sense to improve the ships’ performance.  The ship is more attractive to charterers but also the net result of any voyage is appreciably better if the consumption is less, because the cost of fuel is one of the largest components of the overall expense.

It should be quite evident therefore from this brief outline, that shipping has already reduced its use of fossil fuels, and consequently its emissions, and it is quite clear that the incentive and the motivation are there to continue this process because if nothing else, it will improve the bottom line.

It should also be noted that all of these improvements have come about at a time when there was a huge increase in trade volumes.

Yet, some people complain.  Politicians want to further burden shipping by taxing its emissions, ignoring that the incentive exists, and asking for new vessels, but not just politicians.

There are well-known groups, persons and organizations that push very hard, the idea that existing ships, some very young, should be replaced with new more economical ones, the so-called Eco ships.  Of course, the truly eco ships will come, of course, the shipping industry has continuously planned for more economical vessels, but they must be built as replacements to existing vessels when it is time for them to be renewed in the years to come.  This process must not be rushed, it is very damaging to the environment.

On the face of it, especially for those outside the industry, it sounds like a splendid idea, gets a new ship that uses less energy, consumes less fuel, and emits less CO2.  That appears to be an excellent aspiration.  However, what should not be forgotten, conveniently or otherwise, is the enormous energy use and the consequent huge CO2 footprint that would result from building this more economical vessel.  A footprint that is much larger than any energy and CO2 emissions that will be saved in comparison to the consumption of the existing vessel.

This fact may be news to some, but it is a really staggering realization and hopefully an eye-opener to these groups, to the politicians, and to people at large, and an indication why there should always be a cost-benefit analysis, not only in terms of money but also in terms of the impact on the environment.

Already, and beyond all the efforts to reduce shipping’s energy use, there is ongoing research and development in alternative fuels.  It is important to stress again, that the need for other energy sources is not only environmental but also a matter of pure economics in reducing expenses due to the very high cost of fossil fuels.  To reiterate, therefore, the incentive is there as it always has been through the decades.  Efficiency in shipping for those involved in this industry, is a priority and has always been and will continue to be.  As a result, shipping’s energy use will continue to decline as a percentage of trade volumes and the environmental impact will continue to improve.

There is much discussion about LNG as fuel, and this already is being taken into account, because ships are being ordered with engines that can readily burn either LNG or fossil fuels. However, a vessel that burns just LNG is good for short-sea shipping only, at least for the time being, because for longer voyages there are storage problems for the LNG on board.  It is expected that the infrastructure will be built to the extent needed given time.  The dual-fuel engines will offer tremendous advantages, as the ships will be able to burn LNG close to shore and normal fuel for longer crossings.

There are other issues and other aspects to energy and shipping: –

-Unnecessary interference by authorities damages the efficiency of shipping and therefore impacts on the environment and on shipping’s energy use.

-Legislation generally which produces regulations that were not well thought of, without a proper impact assessment, and without a feasibility study on the cost-effectiveness of its provisions, affects the energy used by ships.

-Unnecessary downgrading of existing vessels and consequently unnecessary building of new ships.

-Mis-information from some organizations that supposedly care for the environment causes enormous harm and increases energy use.

It is much better for the environment to improve existing vessels in the short term rather than build new ones.

The above present a different perspective, a more realistic assessment of energy and shipping and hopefully provide reassurance that without the hype, without the fanfare, shipping continues to work diligently in improving its efficiency even further, so that it can continue to reduce its energy use and its impact on the environment.