In July 2023, at its Mepc80 meeting, the International Organization’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MepC)-which sets environmental policies for global transport-unveiled its modified greenhouse gases strategy to guide global transportation. Emissions of zero gases by or around the year 2050.. ..
For an industry responsible for nearly 3 % of global greenhouse gas emissions, it was the first signal that the uncontrolled carbon age ended and was welcomed as a historical milestone.
However, there have been several protests, whispers and explicit names about the appearance of IMO since Zero net frame, Including the US State Department that “Tax on the World Carbon“And”An Environmental Agreement that makes the United States unintentionally or unfair or harms to the interests of the American people.“
Recently, in September, a number of Greek ship owners, who have long been regarded as traditionalists in the industry, publicly condemned the framework and called it “unrealistic” and separated from the realm of world trade.
While this may expect from the United States, that only counts it Less than 0.5 % of the world’s merchant fleetSuch an interpretation of the Greek ship owners who own 20 % of the world’s merchant fleet Pauses to others. So what’s the matter here?
What exactly is the pure zero framework of IMO?
IMO is the United Nations Agency that determines the laws of international transport. Its strategy 2023 showed a turning point and promoted its goal in 2018 “50 % Reduction by 2050” to the net zero -to -mid -century commitment.
To move from the promise to practice, the Zero Net Framework Organization developed a global carbon accountability system for transportation.
This combination of emissions reduction standards, life cycle assessment and controversial carbon pricing mechanism. Ships that go beyond the set restrictions deal with the weather fund, while things that better goals can earn credits.
This framework uses a good approach for waking up, and measures its release from the entire fuel-production cycle, transportation and use. It started to start around 2027, first focusing on the largest ocean ships that create most of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Supporters argue that this framework eventually brings fairness, anticipation, and accountability to a scattered industry that depends on voluntary commitments.
The main reason for the program
Those who support the IMO framework believe that only global coordination can guarantee a significant change. By setting uniform goals and punishments, the system prevents regulatory patches, where some countries implement strict standards while others pretend they do not understand.
It also sends a powerful message to ship owners, capitalists and fuel suppliers: cheap and dirty fuel era ends. Clear regulations assure investors to overcome new fuels such as green ammonia or electronic methanol, and they know that they are not ignored by competitors who ignore these rules.
In short, supporters see the zero net framework not as a punishment but as a long -term insurance policy, and protect the importance of the industry in the low -carbon world.
Why some ship owners push back
However, this optimism is not shared.
The owners of the Greek ship, who control about 20 % of the world’s merchant fleet, have become some of the most explicit critics. Their concern is not aimed at the goal, no one denys the need for decoration, but with the speed and practical program.
They argue that cleaning fuels are still expensive and short, and that carbon costs are the most durable risks before other options that make smaller players out of the business.
Seatrade Maritime News reports George Procopio, the head of the Dynacom tankers, who says “The regulators, with the fake hope of carbon excretion, pay the “tax collector” who escape the industry.“
They also raise the issue of justice. Many developing economies rely on affordable maritime transport to maintain trade. If the cost of transportation is sharply increased due to carbon pricing, it can deal with the poorest countries, especially those away from the main markets.
Unless the proposed carbon fund is used to help such countries, this framework increases global inequality rather than closing them.
Between ambition and practical
The IMO program is among the ambitions of the weather and commercial reality. Technology remains in its early stages to achieve complete carbon excretion, from green fuels to global banking infrastructure.
For the framework of the work, it must combine the rules with realism. It requires strong financial mechanisms, fair distribution of carbon revenues, and clear incentives for premature movement. Without this, the initiative will turn into a paper victory that causes dissatisfaction rather than progress ..
Forward way
Despite protests, political and commercial protests, an unavoidable fact: global transport cannot delay its energy transfer forever.
The discussion of the pure zero framework of the IMO is not just about carbon. Who is the cost, who records this opportunity, and who guides the transfer.
The United States may not have many ships on the water, but it certainly has a lot of comments. The owners of Greek ships may not like the rules, but they know that change is inevitable.
Whether this resistance comes from Capitol Hill or Piraeus Port has become the tide of change now. The only real question is whether the industry learns to boast or fight the current flow.
Related
About the Author
