Reading this report from GL Reynolds, an environmental consulting firm, for a couple of environmental charities on the effects of a world-wide reduction of 20% in the speed of the shipping fleets reminds me that the climate is, at its most basic, the largest imaginable example of the tragedy of the commons. First, the potential benefits of fuel consumption and reduction in CO2 production:
The reduction in fuel consumption of a ships’ main engine and the proportionate reduction in CO2 emissions within most speed ranges is well established. As a rule of thumb, a cubic relation between ship speed and main engine fuel consumption is assumed. When a ship reduces its speed by 10%, engine power is reduced by 27%, but since it takes longer to sail a given distance at a lower speed, the energy required for the voyage is reduced by 19%. Other factors will also influence the relationship between ship speed and engine power including weather conditions and, at a fleet level, the additional ships which may be required to provide the same transport work. As a consequence, the fuel and CO2 emission reductions associated with slower ship speeds are likely to be lower.
Recent work by Faber et al estimated the CO2 emission reduction potential for a 10, 20, and 30% speed reduction for the three major ship types for the period 2018-2030. Although the specific level of emission reduction was dependent upon ship type, overall the analysis indicated that the baseline CO2 emissions could be reduced by around 13% and 24%, if ships reduced their speed by 10% and 20% respectively.
Other forms of pollution, as well as effects on marine wildlife are covered as well – to summarize, they are positive to a greater amount than might be expected. The other good news, from the BBC, is that the shipping industry is in step with these recommendations:
While shipping wasn’t covered by the Paris climate agreement, last year the industry agreed to cut emissions by 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels.
Which all sounds fine and dandy, doesn’t it? But keep in mind that a general rule of business is that time is money, and the firm that can ship quicker has the potential to ship more in a calendar year – and make more money. Suppose a firm finds itself in a difficult situation, but if it can ship more product, it’ll survive – or make more profit.
Does it adhere to a 20% reduction in speed? Or does it figure that its tiny little contribution is immaterial? And then its competitors notice and they think …
It almost sounds hopeless, because the oceans are big and ships hard to track. But there’s an unless here: Unless you happen to have the United States on your side. With the American satellite network, and American high technology, it is possible to track any ship that can be detected from orbit, whether visually or via transponder. And then track its speed.
The sad part is that American leadership is completely lacking. For the current Administration, short-term profit symbolizes success; anything that may impinge on that profit is considered to be evil. And therefore, it seems unlikely that any American leadership will come forward before the end of the Trump Administration.
