Green is a far away dream : Marine fuel sources are FAR from ready
I had the privilege to be at the TOC Asia last week and attend a presentation by Jan-Paul de Wilde from RINA and view his presentation with interest yet - deep despair.
As most of us had suspected, perhaps the worlds largest source of carbon emissions, ocean transport, is far far from ready to comply with its commitments.
And it is not due to the commitment of major carriers, it "appears" to be a complete absence of a structured strategy. Of course the nuts and bolts to put it all together are significant - but they have had years and years for this.
So, here is what I learned - and it is honestly bewildering:
1. The fuel sources themselves are not globally available. And this is for a variety of reasons as mentioned below - like dominoes falling over:
2. The major carriers are not aligned on a single alternative source
3. In the absence of a commitment from the carriers, the producers are not able to commit to supply
4. The delivery pipeline too is far from ready - and storage and delivery is not uniform for a carrier to put a string around it
5. There is a close to 30% higher cost for alternate fuel - and I'd wager it cannot be passed on as a "Green Fuel Surcharge".
6. Lastly, and sadly, no one is trying to draw these loose strings in to a green fabric - with the IMO being a legislative body and administrator alone, without penury powers of enforcement.
Now consider this - the bulk of trade runs on 3 main routes a) Far-East to Europe b) Far-East to North America and c) Far-East to the Persian Gulf.
I would wager that two thirds of global container traffic would fall in these routes, and so would half of the solid and liquid bulk trade. So, if trade is concentrated and alliance strings make up a large part, why cannot a single type of alternate fuel be agreed ?
And how many major or way-ports would we find in these 3 areas ? 30 ? 50 ? A maximum 100 ? Would the major ports not be willing to work with the suppliers to get the infrastructure ready ?
The USA having already bailed out on their climate commitments, and investments to reach the 2030 or 2050 targets seem scant, and each major economy (except the PRC) is thinking only of their needs and benefits.
So, what are we to leave as a legacy to our children ? A destroyed planet that would be unlivable when their children inherit the earth.
It is sad. It is tragic. It is deeply disappointing. It is immensely frustrating.
