What the new IMO climate targets mean for shipping emissions
Michael Petroni, MJ Mace and Maheen Haq
The International Maritime Organization has agreed new 2030 and 2050 climate targets for the shipping sector. We take a look at what this means for shipping emissions.
After a week of meetings in London – and years of inaction – parties to the IMO have finally agreed a climate strategy. The new targets announced last week, although an improvement, are not as ambitious as they need to be. We take a look at what they mean for future shipping emissions.
Disappointing targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050
Shipping accounts for 3% of global emissions – roughly the same as aviation. The average cargo ship has a lifetime of around 30 years, so the regulations adopted on Friday will shape shipping emissions for decades to come.
The IMO’s previous target of halving shipping emissions by 2050 was woefully inadequate – the Climate Action Tracker finds that if all sectors showed this level of ambition, the world would be up to 4°C warmer by the end of the century.
Overall, the targets have been made stronger – including the setting of 2030 and 2040 emission reduction targets for the first time and a commitment to reach net zero by “close to” 2050. But the choice of language is concerning – it’s unclear how legally binding “indicative checkpoints” are, or when exactly “close to” 2050 is. And the targets still fall short on ambition.
For this critical decade, the IMO set a target of 20% emissions cuts by 2030, adding non-binding wording on “striving for 30%”. But to limit warming to 1.5°C, global emissions need to halve by the end of the decade, and our analysis under the Climate Action Tracker further shows that CO2 emissions from all shipping need to fall 47% below 2008 levels by 2030.
The strategy also includes a 70% emissions reduction target, “striving for” 80% by 2040, and a net-zero target “by or around” 2050 that allows for “different national circumstances,” reflecting divisions between developed and developing countries. Some developing countries have previously opposed a 2050 net zero target due to the impact this could have on their economies.
Counting the full lifecycle of fuels in shipping emissions
Decarbonisation measures in shipping have so far focused on energy efficiency and a shift to scalable zero emission fuels (SZEFs) like green hydrogen. The new IMO climate strategy says these fuels should reach around 5% of demand from shipping by 2030 (striving for 10%) – currently the share is zero.
UMAS estimates that around 10% of fuels used in shipping could be transitioned to SZEFs this decade. Market-based measures and fuel standards could help increase demand by making them cost competitive with fossil fuels.
But worryingly, this new target also allows for ‘near zero’ emission fuels, which would likely result in the uptake of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or ‘zero emissions’ fuels not derived from renewable energy. The use of such fuels would not be consistent with a rapid transition to net zero.
Another pressing issue to agree is how to calculate emissions from maritime fuels. The tank-to-wake approach measures emissions from fuels burned on ships, while the well-to-wake approach looks at the entire lifecycle of a fuel. The second method picks up emissions used in the production of fuels that could otherwise be classed as zero emissions by the first method.
A just and equitable transition for the shipping industry
Small islands, among the most climate-vulnerable parties to the IMO, have been pushing for more ambition. These countries want the IMO to adopt just climate policies, for example, using revenues from emissions taxes to support the energy transition in small island developing states and least developed countries.
But the IMO pushed back the decision on this highly anticipated shipping levy to 2025, even though it’s clear a levy would be an effective and equitable way forward.
Pacific Island nations have also pointed out that the Green Shipping Corridors adopted at COP26 in 2021 only connect developed countries and major economic players in international shipping. Cutting small islands out of the international shipping market in this way would not be a fair outcome. Measures should be taken to support country-driven initiatives that strengthen small island developing states’ economies and infrastructure as they work to decarbonise.
What about EU climate laws on shipping?
The EU’s new FuelEU Maritime regulation requires shipping emissions to decline 80% by 2050 and includes penalties for shipping companies that don’t comply with limits on fuel carbon intensity and onshore electricity usage.
However, restrictions can be avoided by using LNG or biofuels, despite these fuels still being emissions intensive and damaging to the environment. Financial penalties are a step in the right direction, but loopholes and low costs may make them too weak to incentivise compliance.
When the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) expands into the maritime sector next year, ships will have to pay for their emissions if they sail to or from an EU port. The scheme will also expand beyond carbon dioxide to cover nitrogen oxide and methane as of 2026. Critically, a portion of maritime ETS revenues will be reinvested back into efforts to decarbonise shipping in Europe.
While this represents progress, our recent paper finds that the EU should consider the impact its regulations have on non-EU countries, mainly neighbouring states as well as vulnerable developing countries. Equitable transition considerations should be part of the discussion moving forward, especially in terms of finance, technology transfer and other support for impacted countries.
Following last week’s strategy, the IMO is unlikely to update its climate targets for years to come. Attention should now turn to what it can do to ensure these new targets are used as a springboard to drive even more ambitious action across the sector. What’s more, it urgently needs to set out the policies and measures necessary not only to effectively meet these targets, but to ensure we do so in an equitable way.
COP28: social and economic metrics could serve as stepping stone for Global Goal on Adaptation
As work on shaping the Global Goal on Adaptation culminates this week at COP28, we explore if social and economic metrics could be used as proxies for a country’s ability to adapt.
Safeguards and exit points for the World Bank as host of the Loss and Damage Fund
An agreement was reached to establish the World Bank as the interim host of the Loss and Damage Fund. Developing countries signed up to this on certain conditions. We unpack the safeguards put in place and look at the three points at which the Fund could exit the World Bank.
Beetaloo gas field is a climate bomb. How did CSIRO modelling make it look otherwise?
The fossil gas industry is gearing up for a truly enormous new fracking project in the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin that could undo all Australia's efforts to cut emissions.
From droughts to floods: how Eastern African countries are responding to the rising El Niño and Indian Ocean Dipole
The Horn of Africa looks set to go from one disaster to another as floods intensified by a rising El Niño and a positive Indian Ocean Dipole are predicted to follow a prolonged drought. We take a look at climate policies in the region and what countries are doing to prepare for compound extreme events.
The just transition looks different for small islands – their voices must be heard
The concept of a just transition is gaining momentum, yet it’s too often viewed through a developed country lens in international climate talks and discussions often ignore the links to climate justice. The unique concerns of small islands must be heard to ensure the just transition works for all.
Overshoot Commission’s veneer of neutrality is solar radiation modification PR by stealth
Calls for a moratorium on solar radiation modification (SRM) today by the Overshoot Commission seem sensible – such sun-blocking technologies are highly risky. Yet in the same breath, the Commission appears to encourage moratorium-busting SRM testing, begging the question – is their new report a trojan horse?
Loss and damage: two options in play for fund’s makeup
There are currently two options on the table for the loss and damage fund’s structure – ‘programmatic’ and ‘responsive’. We reflect on the pros and cons of each.
El Niño is contributing to the hottest temperatures ever recorded – what does this mean for the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit?
Extreme weather is raging across the northern hemisphere. Our experts explain the implications of the emerging El Niño for our changing climate.
Climate models underestimate food security risk from ‘compound’ extreme weather
Climate change poses a risk to global food security. Weather and climate extremes, such as prolonged drought, heavy rainfall and heatwaves, can lead to harvest failures. These are occurring with increased magnitude and frequency on a warming planet. In addition, such events can disrupt supply chains, decreasing food supply and leading to price spikes.