The announcement by Maersk and Inditex, the parent of Zara, indicates the kind of cooperation we need to reach climate control goals. Both firms have 2040 target for zero emissions. Inditex is a large retailer that sources around the world, and Maersk can carry the goods. And Maersk’s choice of green methanol as a fuel gives it a running start on reaching its goals. So the combination is a significant one.
Both firms are also high-profile, and this sends a message to others that controlling maritime logistical emissions is important, both to investors and customers, and to the world’s citizens.
Goals such as those of the International Maritime Association (IMO) cannot be reached without major cooperative efforts that bring economic forces to bear. As economies of scale develop, so will technology and business interests to support it.
Ship It Zero is a collective of US environmental groups. It has designed a new scorecard, with separate metrics for shippers and ocean carriers, for decarbonization efforts.
Many shippers, such as Costco, scored very low. And shipping lines were also graded low. The exception was Scandinavian lines and shippers. Maersk was graded B; most would agree that Maersk has been trying very hard to make moves for decarbonization, and is probably the leading liner company in that regard. Ikea also got a good grade, still only a B+ at 89/100.
Naturally both shippers and carriers were outraged, and had all sorts of criticisms of the scorecard. Most of those mentioned in the second article were the usual protestations, which no longer carry much weight. It’s abundantly clear that most carriers and shippers are making only minimal changes in practice to decarbonize.
One of the silliest criticisms is to blame it on the IMO (International Maritime Organization), a UN consortium of countries making rules for shipping. With over 130 members, it’s a surprise they can agree on anything. To say we would do more if the rules were stricter is really nonsense. Companies could do something now.
Ship It Zero points out that few shippers are even quantifying Scope 3 emissions. These are downstream emissions created by the firm’s customers. You can read an extensive and defining discussion in the Supplement to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.
How could an ocean carrier account for the emissions created by its customers? According to the standard, it could look at how the containers or bulk cargoes were being handled and transported ashore once landed. Are the drayage firms using EVs? What is the power source of the trains? How about storage and pipeline operation, is there leakage, or is excessive carbon or greenhouse gas emission occurring from pumping mechanisms? The same would apply to delivery to the ship.
For instance, Scope 3 emissions would include the GHG emissions treated by the firms producing and selling the fuel for ships. Green fuel sources would get higher scores than conventionally produced bunker fuel. Similarly if LNG were used as fuel, Scope 3 methane emissions from the bunkering sites should be considered, as well as the Scope 1 emissions onboard from burning the fuel.
Retailers can evaluate the Scope 3 GHG emissions created by their suppliers. They can also estimate the Scope 3 carbon emissions from use of the products they sell. Ikea for instance has invested in reducing the weight and materials used in packaging products to lower the carbon impact. Other firms could do the analysis with their products.
So I’m with Ship It Zero when it comes to the score. We can easily debate whether the score is considering all the factors. But there is no question that both shippers and carriers can and should do more, and stop simply greenwashing emissions.
The EU’s Wind Assisted Ship Propulsion (WASP) project has ended. So far we seem to have favorable findings concerning the viability of retrofitting ships with wind propulsion units in addition to conventional power.
Estimates seem to be coming in at up to 10% savings. This is in the North Sea, where the winds blow heavy. However, 10% is not to be sneezed at. It’s a significant reduction in both energy and GHG emissions.
The picture of a bulker fitted with the sails shows one way to add the wind power.
Cooperation between shipowners and technology developers as well as university researchers is key. The list of partners is impressive.
This statement is from their website:
“The project brings together universities, wind-assist technology providers with ship owners to research, trial and validate the operational performance of a selection of wind propulsion solutions on five vessels thus enabling wind propulsion technology market penetration and contributing to a greener North Sea transport system through harvesting the region’s abundant wind potential.”
WASP has published their last newsletter, and also other publications. It’s interesting reading. There is also a final webinar.
Since I sailed as a kid, I’ve been interested in commercial applications of wind power. It’s exciting to see new engineering marvels tailored for the maritime world. Let’s hope the WASP research will lead to more and better wind power for ships.
Supply Chain and Logistics 