As consumers, we don’t know much, or really think much, about shipping. Wine from New Zealand sipped in New York? Chinese-made toys under the Christmas tree? The steel I-beams in a roof? We don’t need to worry about how it all got here.
And then there’s the question of what powers the hulking vessels that carry 90 per cent of everything we consume. Historically it’s been fossil fuels. The shipping industry consumes 5 per cent of global oil production and is responsible for 1 billion tons of annual emissions – 3 per cent of global emissions – the same as big economies such as Germany or Japan.
Now, the UN’s shipping regulator, the International Maritime Organization ‘s (IMO) is debating ways to “decarbonise” the industry. They’re talking about relying on biofuels, an energy source that has been portrayed as a “green” or “clean” option but really isn’t.
The harmful impacts of bioenergy aren’t just related to its carbon emissions, which rival those of oil and gas. In addition, bioenergy production, including crop-based liquid biofuels, is linked to land and water grabbing, loss of food sovereignty, threats to food security, and widespread ecological harm.
The IMO’s Global Fuel Standard, part of a historic target to transition shipping to a net zero scenario by around 2050 was debated this month in London.
“
The shipping industry consumes 5 per cent of global oil production and is responsible for 1 billion tons of annual emissions – 3 per cent of global emissions – the same as big economies such as Germany or Japan.
It could either phase out fossil fuel and promote the uptake of sustainable fuels and embrace energy savings, or explode demand for destructive biofuels, threatening food security, biodiversity, and forests. It’s a scenario that has played out before in the heat and power industry, an example we can learn from.
Where I live in North Carolina, we’re proud of our longleaf pines, a beloved state symbol. They used to be used to make the tallest ship’s masts. These days, they’re logged and turned into wood chips or pellets that are burned up as “biofuels” for heat and electricity. Some big pine trunks are processed locally by companies in some of the poorest towns in our state, and others are sent to Europe to power plants.
In a climate change crisis, we count on forests and land to act as “carbon sinks,” absorbing the harmful emissions that countries around the world keep throwing into the atmosphere despite thirty years of international negotiations and promises.
Wood for pellets is one example of how forests and land are being gobbled up for heat and power, and it has been a proven disaster. Another nefarious one is biofuels from crops like soybean and palm oil, which is what the shipping industry is now targeting. This has caused concern among civil society organisations who realise the ills of biodiesel are at least on par with those of oil and gas.
These groups were joined by shipping companies, including the German shipping giant Hapag-Lloyd, who called for the exclusion of crop-based biofuels from IMO’s list of green alternatives to traditional fossil fuels.
The call came after a proposal by Brazil last year promoting biofuels as a long-term solution to power shipping. Brazil, the world’s second-largest biofuel producer after the United States, is already facing the consequences of crop-based biofuel expansion such as oil palm, soy, and maize. Recent studies show increased deforestation rates, rising food prices, and the conversion of forestlands for biofuel cultivation.
By 2030, most biofuels could come from palm and soy, with almost 300 million bottles of vegetable oil diverted to powering ships every day, a scenario with major consequences for the environment and people if the IMO opts for deforestation-linked biofuels. Advanced biofuels derived from residues and waste won’t meet the demand of such a large market due to their scarcity, limited scalability, and connection with fraud risk.
Biofuel takes up fertile land that could be used to feed populations who are struggling with food security, including on territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities who are often dispossessed and criminalised.
Food- and feed-based biofuels are also linked to deforestation, an urgent problem in the Amazon and in many of the world’s tropical forests, which are homes and habitats as well as carbon sinks.
The IMO has until April at its MPEC 83 meeting to wrap up negotiations on pathways to decarbonise their industry. This group and its 176 member states—including Brazil, which will host United Nations Climate COP30 this year—would be wise to rule out the use of biofuels for shipping, as civil society groups around the world are urging them to do.
As the groups point out, gobbling up cropland to produce biodiesel is not the way to decarbonise shipping operations. There are better and more sustainable options, for example, like improved energy efficiency through innovative ship designs, and the adoption of advanced propulsion technologies like wind assistance.
The longleaf pines, like the jungles of Brazil and forests around the world are worth a lot more standing than being burned for temporary gain.
This story was published with permission from Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit https://www.context.news/.
