On 13 May delegates attending the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) week-long committee meeting on the marine environment and shipping were greeted by the Extinction Rebellion comically moving deckchairs on an imaginary sinking ship.
Good-natured climate protesters concerned that IMO is not doing enough to meet the challenges of climate change made their point, but when industry insiders start to question the commitment of the industry regulator then it is time to sit up and take notice.
Eirik Nyhus, Director Environment at DNV GL – Maritime, is clear, “Looking into IMO’s 2050 goals it is very clear that the need for carbon neutral fuels is paramount. Without them the reduction goals simply cannot be met, and to make them available in time the R&D work needs to start now, with trials and infrastructure/deployment efforts need to be scaled pretty rapidly.”
At 6.45am on March 1, 1954, the blue sky stretching over the south Pacific Ocean was split open by an enormous red flash.
Within seconds, a mushroom cloud towered 7.2 kilometres high over Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The explosion, the US government's first weaponised hydrogen bomb, was 1000 times more powerful than the "Little Boy" atomic bomb blast that flattened Hiroshima - and a complete miscalculation.
“Shipping industry associations no longer represent the best interests of shipping companies,” was one damning indictment as environmentalists responded angrily to the outcome of the IMO’s Maritime Environmental Protection Committee meetings last week in London.
The week-long discussions (MEPC 74) were set to consider proposals to cut GHGs produced by shipping, targeting a 50% reduction in maritime emissions by 2050.
However, hopes of a clear path forward on any short-term measures were dashed when the UN body failed to decide on any of the proposals put forward.