The Daily View: Transferable votes
SHIPPING businesses and trade groups know they would be mad not to support the International Maritime Organization’s big green deal in October, at least publicly.
There is a lot that is wrong with the Net Zero Framework as it stands, but as Shell rightly points out, there is no plan B.
There is, however, the opportunity for a frantic period of last minute lobbying, which is what is happening right now.
The design of the boring detail that will ultimately underpin the future of a decarbonised, but fundamentally more costly and complicated shipping industry represents huge risks and opportunities for companies, fuel makers and suppliers.
So, while Donald Trump may think he can force countries to end the deal via threats of more tariffs, visa restrictions and port levies, what we should be looking at is the detail of what is under discussion. That’s where you find the devil.
April’s approval passed 63-16. The states that already voted “No” will do so again, and the Pacific Islands will probably switch to “Yes” votes if it looks like the cast-iron majority is starting to crack.
The risk the US can convince other swing voters to turn heel is not zero, but the prevailing winds are that a messy, slightly dysfunctional outline of a global carbon tax will pass in October.
There won’t be any e-fuels without lots more regulatory help from the IMO. We hope countries will provide this, but there are no guarantees.
Without robust detail the transition will be a case of my definition of “green biofuel” against yours. Who gets to write that definition is the shadow play we see starting to play out now.
Bio-LNG sounds great, if it can be made as cheap and plentiful as the likes of Shell say it can. If it is cheaper than paying fines to the IMO, it might well succeed.
But claims by an oil and gas supermajor arguing to lock in investments in the fossil gas it sells should be taken with a grain of salt, at least by a responsible newspaper like this one.
The option to “burn fossil LNG then just pay the fines until 2040” was missing from Shell's marketing graphs. Someone may be hoping that option is the one the industry takes.
The countries selling most of today’s oil and gas say the framework will simply raise vast sums and fail to spur any sort of fuel switch. They are pin-drop quiet on alternatives to the NZF, a plan they have worked for years to prevent and now to undermine.
The alternative to the NZF is not no regulation, it's every country for itself. Lots of carbon taxes overlapping, with no industry input into how the funds are spent.
Remember that when considering the US threats to vote “No” in October.
Richard Meade
Editor-in-chief, Lloyd’s List
Content Original Link:
" target="_blank">
