Global breakthrough agreement on resolving the shipping emissions

The countries agreed with the global agreement on resolving shipping shows, after almost ten years of negotiations.

The agreement covers the vast majority of the world’s commercial delivery and means that starting in 2028, owners of ships will have to use the clearer fuel or face a fine.

The deal was almost destroyed after Saudi Arabia forced a last minute vote, and now they have drawn talks in London – but in the end it went on Friday.

The small island states and environmental groups were angry that the tax on the blanket was not agreed and called the agreement “inappropriate for the purpose.”

Account delivery for about 3% of global emissions. But unlike many other sectors, he struggled to reduce his carbon imprint in the last decade and relies on fossil fuels like diesel.

But the agreement means that now is the first industry in the world with internationally mandate goals to reduce emissions.

The agreement was adopted at a meeting of the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO).

They will look for the owners of large international vessels to increase the use of fewer carbon fuels or face up to $ 380 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions emitted from fuel.

Although the final agreement was adopted, he had to be voting – an unusual move for UN bodies that usually agree with consensus measures.

The vote was requested by Saudi Arabia, which did not support the agreement, and this position was shared by a dozen other oil -produced countries, including Russia.

Although they opposed the proposal, they will be obliged to implement it because they are members of the IMA.

There were moves to improve the efficiency of ships, but the emissions continue to increase in accordance with global trade – 90% of which are carried by ships.

The most effective measure would be to switch ships from fossil fuels to green fuel, but that would be very expensive.

“There is no fuel as cheap as diesel that use ships today, because when we take out the raw oil out of the ground, we remove all the beautiful pieces, it is Kerozin for aviation, diesel and gasoline for cars,” said FAIG Abbasov, the Tank Tank -ai Environmental Transport Director.

“Whatever left at the bottom, that’s what the ships burn. So no fuel will be as cheap as much energy goes into its production,” he said.

For comparison, the most appropriate fuels such as e-pale and ammonia are created from the initial division of water atoms to obtain hydrogen, which is a very energy intense and expensive process.

The figures differ depending on the type of fuel but Estimates of the World Economic Forum That these green fuels are 3-4 times more expensive for production.

“There is still a huge gap of costs between fossil fuels and zero emission fuels and we have to close this gap. So, you need carrots and wands, and in a rod of the stick is not so large that it uses sustainable fuel,” said Refke Gunnewijk, Head of Sustainable Transport Program at Luka Rotterdam.

Some of the island states also refrained and said that the job was watered by the version of what they had hoped for. An earlier proposal for the application of a blanket or carbon tax – which would be the first world – it was rejected.

“Let’s be clear about who left Saudi Arabia of 1.5 ° C, the United States -the fossil fuel allies pushed numbers to an unsustainable level and blocked progress at every turn,” said Ralph Regenvan, Minister of Energy and Climate Change for Vanuatu.

Their disappointment was shared by environmental groups.

“This week, the Member States of IMA have missed a golden opportunity for a global ship’s sector to show the world that it can turn the tide with a catastrophic heating of the climate, putting its own goals out of reach,” said Delaine McCullough, president of the Coalition for the Pure Shipping Coalition.

It is estimated that the agreement could achieve an 8% reduction in emissions for the sector by 2030, according to the mind for maritime consultation. This would be less than the goal of IMA agreed two years ago to reduce the show by 20% by the end of the decade.

But China and Brazil have previously expressed concern that the levy could result in a significant increase in prices for basic goods like food. Both countries supported the final contract.

Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization on the global maritime forum, said the job was a compromise.

“It’s a difficult set of decisions, but it’s the first such regulation and that will be celebrated,” he said.

Fahnestock added that it is not clear whether penalties are sufficient to close the gap between costs between the fuel types.

“You may have encouraged the shipowners to prepare a little preparation for future fuel, but whether the signal is strong enough to get billions of dollars in production in the manufacturing plant for these fuels – I don’t think those regulations will overcome. I think it will need more,” he said.

Each money raised from the penalty will be placed in the “Net zero” fund, with money consumed on scaling of greenery fuels and supporting developing countries.

This is exactly what the “redistribution” has encouraged to have a US delegation to withdraw from a conversation on Tuesday night. The United States has sent a letter to all countries in IMO talks, saying that any imposing will cause inflation, and if adopted, then “reciprocal measures” will be taken.

Although the American move agreed with his long position in IMO, he was in line with the pressure of Trump President to the climate action seen in the last few months -such as the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.

But industry delegates appeared unrestrained when they spoke with the BBC on Wednesday and continued negotiations.

The US only indicates 178 cargo ships representing 0.57% of the world commercial tonnage. So, if the decision was supposed to not implement new proposals, it is unlikely that it will significantly affect the funds raised.

Now the committee has agreed with a measure, it is expected to be formally adopted in October.