Speed optimization versus speed reduction: Are speed limits better than a bunker levy?
The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the speed limit debate, and specifically to look into whether reducing speed by imposing a speed limit is better than achieving the same by imposing a bunker levy. This debate, along with the various issues of speed optimization versus speed reduction, is currently ongoing at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), in the quest to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships. In that context, “speed optimization” and “speed reduction” have been included in the set of candidate short-term measures under discussion at the IMO. However, there is much confusion on what either speed optimization or speed reduction may mean, and some stakeholders have proposed mandatory speed limits as a measure to achieve GHG emissions reductions. To investigate this issue, the speed limit option is compared with the option of reducing speed via a bunker levy. The latter option is not under immediate discussion at the IMO, to be potentially included in the set of medium-term measures. The main result of the paper is that the speed limit option exhibits a number of deficiencies as an instrument aiming to reduce GHG emissions, at least vis-à-vis the bunker levy option.
KeywordsGreenhouse gases Ocean shipping International Maritime Organization Speed reduction Speed optimization Speed limits Bunker levy
Work reported in this paper was funded in part by project ShipCLEAN (Energy efficient marine transport through optimization of coupled transportation logistics and energy systems analysis), supported by the Swedish Energy Agency (project number 2017-003265, Chalmers University of Technology project leader). The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments which helped improve the paper.
- CE Delft. 2017. Regulating speed: A short term measure to reduce maritime GHG emissions, study by CE Delft for the Clean Shipping Coalition, Oct 18.Google Scholar
- CSC. 2018. The regulation of ship operational speed: An immediate GHG reduction measure to deliver the IMO 2030 target, submitted by the Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) to the 4th Intersessional Working Group on GHGs, IMO doc. ISWG-GHG 4/2/8. IMO: London, UK.Google Scholar
- Devanney, J.W. 2011. Speed limits versus slow steaming. Center for Tankship Excellence. https://www.c4tx.org. Accessed 22 Oct 2019.
- FMC. 2012. Bureau of trade analysis. In Study of the 2008 repeal of the liner conference exemption from European Union competition law. Washington, DC: Federal Maritime Commission.Google Scholar
- Gkonis, K.G., and H.N. Psaraftis. 2012. Modelling tankers’ optimal speed and emissions. Archival paper, 2012 SNAME transactions, vol. 120: 90–115. Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Providence, RI, USA, Oct 2012.Google Scholar
- IMO. 2018. Resolution MEPC.304(72) (adopted on 13 April 2018), initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships, IMO doc MEPC 72/17/Add. 1, Annex 11.Google Scholar
- Psaraftis, H.N., and C.A. Kontovas. 2009. Ship emissions: logistics and other tradeoffs. In Proceedings of 10th international marine design conference. Trondheim, Norway, May 26–29.Google Scholar
- Psaraftis, H.N., and C.A. Kontovas. 2015. Slow steaming in maritime transportation: fundamentals, trade-offs, and decision models. In Handbook of ocean container transportation logistics: making global supply chains effective, ed. C.-Y. Lee and Q. Meng. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Psaraftis, H.N., and C.A. Kontovas. 2016. Green maritime transportation: speed and route optimization. In Green Transportation Logistics: in Search for Win-Win Solutions, ed. H.N. Psaraftis. Springer.Google Scholar
- Vilas, R.F. 2018. Container shipping performance: a case study on a transpacific service. M.Sc. thesis, Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar