When CMA CGM signed the orders to produce nine LNG-powered container ships in 2017 they did so in good faith and under the watchful (and approving) eye of the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO).
And now this.
From Splash 24/7, August 5, 2021:
LNG-fuelled ships in the crosshairs as IMO details landmark GHG study
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has released its keenly awaited fourth greenhouse gas study, which starkly shows the huge challenge shipping faces to cut its carbon footprint. Proponents of LNG as shipping’s next fuel will also have reacted with shock to certain findings contained in the report.
Despite thousands of pollution cutting measures carried out by the industry over the past decade, the study shows shipping’s climate impact has grown 10% in just six years. Moreover, shipping emissions are projected to increase by up to 50% until 2050, relative to 2018, the study warns.
The study features carbon intensity for the first time as well as estimates of black carbon emissions from ships, which have consequences both for climate and human health.
Despite improving its carbon intensity well in recent years, the fact is the world’s merchant fleet is having to transport more cargoes for a rapidly increasing global population.
The greenhouse gas emissions of shipping increased 9.6% from 977m tonnes in 2012 to 1.076bn tonnes in 2018. The carbon intensity of shipping improved by about 11% in this period, but the growth in activity was larger than the efficiency gains. In the next decades emissions are projected to increase by up to 50% until 2050, relative to 2018, despite further efficiency gains, as transport demand is expected to continue to grow. While the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic will probably cause a decline in emissions in 2020, they are not expected to significantly affect the projections for the coming decades.
Carbon intensity trends since 2008 show a 21% improvement by 2018, which looks inadequate to reach at least 40% improvement by 2030 as required by the IMO....
....MUCH MORE
We'll be back with more but for now a flashback to when the Sierra Club was begging the #2 American natural gas producer for money to fight dirty coal.
As I mentioned in 2012's "Sierra Club Battles Efforts to Export Natural Gas (LNG)":
The Sierra Club secretly took $26 mil. from #2 gas producer Chesapeake to fund its anti-coal campaign, while telling members it did not, then turned on NatGas.
I haven't pulled their last Form 990 but in 2010 their income was around $52 million meaning that CHK's 2007-2010 contributions were definitely meaningful.
"...Don't never, ever trust whitey."*...
Last seen in September 2020's "Could ESG Investing Disrupt The LNG Boom?", which we introduced with:
That appears to be the plan for the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund and a couple other two comma ($100,000,000+) budget groups.
I'm not sure where the Environmental Defense Fund is at these days, in the past they have been scolded by their pressure group brethren for sincerely believing natural gas was a 'bridge' or transition fuel.
