Tag: Bunkers

Wanted: Good News on Shipping and Aviation by Marrakech

In the two decades that ECO has been calling for action on shipping and aviation emissions, the period between now and Marrakech might be the best opportunity ever for some good news on both fronts.

The need for action has become even clearer in the recent UNFCCC aggregate assessment of the impacts of the INDCs. The report finds that mitigation INDCs of 189 countries now cover 95.7% of global emissions. This leaves 4.3% of global emissions outside of such emissions goals. Most of these are from international aviation and maritime transport, which are not covered by either national emissions targets or sectoral emissions caps.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has set its assembly in October as a deadline to finalise its Market Based Measure to implement the goal of “carbon neutral growth from 2020”. This means they will offset emissions growth above 2020 levels in future years, by purchasing credits from outside the sector.

ECO urges the industry to demonstrate leadership and take a solid first step toward tackling the sector’s rapid growth in emissions. Despite facing headwinds, some progress was made in a high level meeting a couple of weeks ago in Montreal. This included making the offset criteria to be adopted mandatory and not just guidelines, and included a review and ratchet clause that explicitly provides for considering further ways that the aviation industry might contribute its fair share towards the long-term temperature goals in the Paris Agreement. On October 7, the global spotlight will be on ICAO to meet its commitment.

On international shipping, Parties have a perfect opportunity to kick-start a real discussion of the sector’s fair contribution to the Paris climate objectives. Parties had, as they say “a range of views”, at the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation meeting. The MEPC decided to consider again the case for creating a working group to address these proposals at the next meeting in October.

There is no reason to delay this further. The IMO is expected to formally agree on a CO2 emissions reporting MRV system for ship emissions later this year. There is already sufficient information and data related to this sector to underpin these important discussions of targets and measures to address emissions. ICAO and IMO, it’s time to align your plans with globally agreed climate objectives.

Related Newsletter : 

Rising Ambition Must Lift All Boats!

And planes, too! ECO is thrilled that Parties are coming around to a target of 1.5°C. But how would we all feel if we got back home and realized—oops!—we left out two huge emitters? International aviation and shipping emissions are equivalent to the carbon emissions of the UK and Germany, are not included in national targets. These emissions are expected to grow up to 270% by 2050. Leaving them out of the agreement would be letting efforts to keep temperature rise under 1.5°C just float on by.
ICAO and IMO are the right UN agencies to regulate these sectors. But, they need to step up their ambition quickly. They can, and must, tackle bunker emissions  in a way that accommodates equally both differentiation and the principles of non-discrimination under which these agencies operate.
Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

“Limiting” Bunker Emissions? That’s Oh So Kyoto!

ECO couldn’t be more pleased that, following Wednesday’s ‘Fossil of the Day’ award for IMO and ICAO, language on shipping and aviation emissions made it to Friday’s draft. But really, why hasn’t someone killed off that Kyoto-era reference to ‘limitation or reduction’ of their emissions? The term ‘limitation’ allows for continued emissions growth, rather than the absolute cuts needed to stay within the remaining global carbon budget.

Emission reductions are needed from both these sectors, whose emissions fall outside of INDCs, if the long term goal of the agreement is to be achieved. And we know that there are many ways to reduce their emissions without harming trade.

At present, ICAO may only address post-2020 emissions, and IMO won’t even set a target! ‘Limitation’ will give ICAO and IMO a green-light for business-as-usual.

So, negotiators–just whip out that Kyoto-era ‘limitation’ language, replace it with a clear call for IMO and ICAO to make a fair contribution to reducing emissions in line with keeping the temperature increase under 1.5°C, and request them to be part of the Article 10 global stocktake.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

ICAO and IMO: Hiding from Their Responsibilities in a Bunker

You’ve heard about the Fossil: even with HUGE emissions, ICAO and IMO’s contribution to COP21 are all recycled promises, delivered to the SBSTA.

The agreement must send ICAO and IMO a clear signal–they have to do their fair share to help us stay below the 1.5 or 2°C limit. They must increase their ambition, and deliver targets and measures that reduce emissions.

ICAO has launched a process to agree on a global market-based mechanism by next year. ECO will be watching to see if they get the job done, and include a mechanism to increase their ambition over time. It’s time for you to deliver. You’re the elephants in the room of these climate negotiations, and it’s time for your special status to end.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Dirty Shipping and Aviation Set for Collision with Fossil Awards

Not a Party, but two international organisations received the First Place Fossil today: the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Put your tray tables up and close the port holes–IMO and ICAO have the same emissions as Japan and Germany combined! These emissions are currently exempt from inclusion in the Paris agreement and IMO and ICAO are doing their worst here to keep it that way. Yet without action, emissions from bunkers will grow 270% by 2050–sinking any chance of limiting temperature rise to safer levels.

International shipping and aircraft enjoy tax free fuel to the tune of over 60 billion bucks, yet don’t want to contribute to climate finance. No wonder the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands called the IMO Secretary General ‘a danger to the planet’.

Coming in hot with today’s Second Place Fossil of the Day award is Turkey. While other developing nations like Mexico, the Philippines and the 43 members of the Climate Vulnerable Forum are bringing lots of positive leadership to the table, Turkey is making a goose of itself.

It’s pretty clear Turkey’s role at these discussions is aimed at extracting as much climate finance as possible. However, its INDC suggests that Turkey’s contribution is a 100% increase in greenhouse gas emissions (on 2013 levels)! You could call that money for nothing.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Shipping & Aviation: Elephants in the Room

The sense of momentum that kicked off the COP Monday seems to have left out two major sources of emissions: international aviation and shipping. Emissions from these sectors fall outside national targets and are therefore separate from the INDCs submitted to-date. So, while most countries have come forward with pledges, these sectors are not included in those contributions.
If aviation and shipping were a country, they would be a top ten emitter, with their emissions expected to grow a whopping 270% by 2050. This would undermine efforts made by states and other sectors, whilst making the 1.5/2 degrees C objective almost impossible to achieve. This should not be an option. These sectors also pay zero tax on their fuel. This is a fossil fuel subsidy that is partly responsible for driving their emissions growth.
Two UN agencies are responsible for regulating emissions from these sectors–the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) for shipping and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for aviation. Since Kyoto tasked them with limiting or reducing emissions from these sectors, their emissions grew instead of decreased–80% between 1990 and 2010, compared to 40% for the rest of the global economy.
The Paris Agreement needs to provide ICAO and IMO with the momentum and ambition that they are so woefully lacking. It should require them to set emissions targets in line with their fair share of the 1.5/2 degree target. It should ensure these targets and efforts are subject to the same review processes that will be created to review national efforts. Ending their tax-free fuel status is also a no-brainer. It can provide climate finance while at the same time driving efficiency gains in these sectors.
Later today, ICAO and IMO will present their failed efforts to SBSTTA. It will be another recital of green washing, excuse making, and inaction. Let’s make this the last COP where ICAO and IMO turn up without doing their homework. They are the climate “elephants in the room”. Let’s use the agreement to end their special (polluting) status.
Visit www.elephantsintheroom.eu for more information.
Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

CAN SBSTA Opening Intervention November 2015

Thank you Mr./Madam Co-Chair,

I am Harshita Bisht, speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.

While a credible response to the climate crisis requires every sector to contribute, international transport emissions have more than doubled since Kyoto.

The Paris Agreement should urge IMO and ICAO to set strong interim targets to help meet the 1.5°C goal. These bodies must adopt strict criteria for alternative fuels; work on adaptation finance; and include their progress on carbon pricing and CO2 standards in COP reporting.     

To achieve the 1.5-degree target, all emissions reductions must moreover adhere to key social and environmental principles.

SBSTA’s work on agriculture will remain hot air unless Parties evaluate methodologies to ensure tangible results.

These should include safeguards to protect and promote gender equality, food security, biodiversity, equitable access to resources, the right to food, animal welfare, and the rights of indigenous peoples and local populations; as well as poverty reduction and adaptation.

Similarly, if recognizing transfer of international units, the Paris Agreement must require that emission reductions are real, additional, verifiable, supplemental and permanent; avoid double counting; ensure net atmospheric benefits and contribute to sustainable development.

A credible agreement will also require Kyoto Protocol credits to be canceled, or not recognized for compliance post 2020.         

Thank you.



Subscribe to Tag: Bunkers