Advertisement

Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policies in the Shipping Sector

  • Emmanouil Doundoulakis
  • Spiros PapaefthimiouEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Climate book series (SPCL)

Abstract

According to the latest estimates presented by IMO in “Third IMO GHG Study 2014” total shipping sector emitted 938 million tonnes of CO2 in 2012 that is about 2.6% of the total global CO2 anthropogenic emissions for that year. Although shipping is the most energy-efficient mode of mass transport and only a modest contributor to overall CO2 emissions, a global approach to further improve its energy efficiency and effective emission control is needed, as sea transport will continue growing apace with world trade. Emissions from international shipping cannot be attributed to any particular national economy due to its global nature and complex operation. This chapter covers policy measures towards climate and environmental protection within the shipping sector and in doing so, provides a detailed overview of the existing regulations of IMO and EU, analysing ancillary benefits of climate change policies.

References

  1. Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (2011) White paper on transport. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  2. Dovie D-BK (2019) Case for equity between Paris Climate agreement’s co-benefits and adaptation. Sci Total Environ 656:732–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ebi K, Ogden N, Semenza J, Woodward A (2017) Detecting and attributing health burdens to climate change. Environ Health Perspect 125(8):085004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. EU Directive 87 (2003) Establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L275/32Google Scholar
  5. EU Regulation 601 (2012) On the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union L181/30Google Scholar
  6. EU Regulation 757 (2015) On the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and amending Directive 2009/16/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L123/55Google Scholar
  7. Fiore A, Naik V, Leibensperger E (2015) Air quality and climate connections. Air Waste Manag Assoc 65:645–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hales S, Kovats S, Lloyd S, Campbell-Lendrum D. (2014) Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Hampshire K, Pridmore A, Claxton R (2017) Wider impacts of climate change mitigation and adaptation actions in Jersey. States of Jersey Department of the Environment, Oxford Centre for Innovation, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. IMO (n.d.) [Online]. Available www.imo.org
  11. IMO DCS (Data Collection System) (2019). DNVGL.com [Online]. https://www.dnvgl.com/maritime/imo-dcs/index.html. Assessed 22 February 2019
  12. IMO Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2018) Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2018 [Online]. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/GHG-Emissions.aspx. Accessed Feb 2019
  13. IPCC (2014) Human health: impacts, adaptation and co-benefits. In: Climate change 2014: contribution of working group II to the 5th assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayrhofer J, Gupta J (2016) The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy. Environ Sci Policy 57:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MEPC 72 (2019) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 72nd session, 9–13 April 2018 [Online]. http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/meetingsummaries/mepc/pages/mepc-72nd-session.aspx. Assessed 22 February 2019
  16. OECD (2016) The economic consequences of outdoor air pollution. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD Publishing), Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  17. Remais J, Hess J, Ebi K, Markandya A, Balbus J, Wilkinson P, Haines A, Chalabi Z (2014) Estimating the health effects of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies: addressing parametric, model, and valuation challenges. Environ Health Perspect 122:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Silva R, West J, Lamarque J-F, Shindell D, Collins W, Faluvegi G, Folberth G, Horowitz L (2017) Future global mortality from changes in air pollution attributable to climate. Nat Clim Chang 7:647–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sofiev M, Winebrake J, Johansson L, Carr E, Prank M, Soares J (2018) Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs. Nat Commun 9, Article 406Google Scholar
  20. Third IMO GHG Study (2014) Third IMO GHG Study. International Maritime Organization (IMO), London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Workman A, Blashki G, Bowen K, Karoly D, Wiseman J (2018a) The political economy of health co-benefits: embedding health in the climate change agenda. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:674–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Workman A, Blashki G, Bowen K, Karoly D, Wiseman J (2018b) Health co-benefits and the development of climate change mitigation policies in the European Union. Clim Pol J 19:585–597.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1544541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Production Engineering and ManagementTechnical University of CreteChaniaGreece

Personalised recommendations