Latest news with #TristanSmith
Scoop
28-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
First-ever Global Shipping Emissions Levy Approved, But Pacific Push For Stronger Deal Fails
But a Pacific push for stronger deal failed at the International Maritime Organisation meeting in Londom last companies will soon have to pay for carbon emissions produced by its vessels for the first time, but the new deal agreed by the global maritime watchdog is still significantly lower than what was demanded by Pacific Island nations. The shipping emissions framework was finalised by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) at its meeting last month in London. While it is yet to be ratified, a formal vote in October on its adoption is expected to be successful. The IMO is the UN agency responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships in international waters. Once implemented, the proposed global emissions scheme would subject ships to a charge on their greenhouse gas emissions. After a certain threshold, that charge is increased, as set out by the finalised framework. Ships would also have the ability to trade carbon credits under the scheme. Overall, the scheme is expected to generate about US$10 billion a year – a fraction of the $60b a year Pacific and Caribbean nations wanted in their own carbon levy pitch for the framework. UCL Energy Institute's Dr Tristan Smith, a professor of energy and transport, told RNZ Nine to Noon that, while agreement on a global emissions scheme is significant and likely a world-first, it could have been more robust. 'In climate terms, and as a scientist, it's always frustrating because you know what needs to be done in order to keep us on the temperature goals that we've talked about in the Paris agreement,' he said. However, achieving that in practice, he said, 'is always incredibly difficult because of the politics of climate negotiations'. 'We also had a particularly difficult time this year with the geopolitical situation, referring to the fact that the Trump administration has taken a strong anti-climate stance, which put the US in a very different position to how they were in previous administrations, and changed the dynamics of the IMO a bit.' Membership of the IMO includes 176 states and more than 150 intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. Dr Smith said the end result of negotiations between various member parties on the proposed scheme resulted in a significantly lower carbon price for shipping emissions than what he believed was needed. 'In the final package, we've got about a $15 per ton of greenhouse gas emitted price that's coming in, and we thought that we needed somewhere between 100 and $150. 'It's a significant reduction, but it still exists and it's still a global agreement, which I believe makes it the first global carbon price.' As recently as February, Pacific nations had proposed a more ambitious global shipping emissions scheme. Not only had the agreed IMO framework failed to meet that, it had also failed in achieving the IMO's own greenhouse gas strategy which it revised in 2023. Smith said Pacific nations wanted a much tougher scheme to effectively drive the transition of the shipping sector to a low carbon model by charging higher costs for greenhouse gas emitters. 'Their vision was to have this transition of the shipping sector driven by a carbon levy – a universal price on greenhouse gas emissions that charged for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions about $150. 'Then coupling that with a mandate that reinforced the fact that this was going to be driven by stringent regulation [like] a hard fine or a penalty if you weren't reducing your emissions and driving a very steep reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, reaching nearly full decarbonisation by 2040.' Dr Smith said that 'steepness' in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and 'power' through a heavy levy was missing. He said that in turn had effectively hampered the rate at which decarbonisation of the shipping industry would likely occur. 'Because we could really subsidise some of the very expensive, or currently very expensive solutions…at the early stage of decarbonisation and really enable companies to have the confidence to invest in scale. 'But also use significant amounts of revenue to help low income countries, not just [small island developing states and least developed countries] like the Pacific island states, but also middle income countries, low income countries, which will need support as we go through the transition.' He said these countries would need assistance to modernise and shift their their own shipping industries to a low-carbon model. The cost of doing that, as well as the economic impacts of increasing transport prices, must be factored in, he added. The finalised framework, which needs two-thirds of the IMO membership vote in October to be ratified, would cover all ships bigger than 5000 gross tons, such as largo cargo ships, in international waters if implemented. Dr Smith believes that eventually it would also cover ships smaller than 5000 gross tons. At that point, all vessels that trade internationally would be captured by the shipping emissions scheme. 'It doesn't drive or change what national governments do with domestically operated ships. So coastal vessels servicing the coast of New Zealand, or ferries within New Zealand wouldn't be affected by this regulation. That's down to the national government to decide what to do,' he said. 'In some ways though, that exactly illustrates why it's such a significant agreement, because it's the missing emissions in international waters that no one was counting that are now, at least in a framework here.' Dr Smith expectes the October vote on the final framework to be successful, despite previous opposition from several larger nations like Saudi Arabia, China, and Brazil. Following that, the scheme was set to be fully implemented in 2027. The UN said that timeframe would give 'the industry time to adapt to new requirements and invest in alternative fuels and technologies'.
Scoop
28-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
First-ever Global Shipping Emissions Levy Approved, But Pacific Push For Stronger Deal Fails
Shipping companies will soon have to pay for carbon emissions produced by its vessels for the first time, but the new deal agreed by the global maritime watchdog is still significantly lower than what was demanded by Pacific Island nations. The shipping emissions framework was finalised by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) at its meeting last month in London. While it is yet to be ratified, a formal vote in October on its adoption is expected to be successful. The IMO is the UN agency responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships in international waters. Once implemented, the proposed global emissions scheme would subject ships to a charge on their greenhouse gas emissions. After a certain threshold, that charge is increased, as set out by the finalised framework. Ships would also have the ability to trade carbon credits under the scheme. Overall, the scheme is expected to generate about US$10 billion a year - a fraction of the $60b a year Pacific and Caribbean nations wanted in their own carbon levy pitch for the framework. UCL Energy Institute's Dr Tristan Smith, a professor of energy and transport, told RNZ Nine to Noon that, while agreement on a global emissions scheme is significant and likely a world-first, it could have been more robust. "In climate terms, and as a scientist, it's always frustrating because you know what needs to be done in order to keep us on the temperature goals that we've talked about in the Paris agreement," he said. However, achieving that in practice, he said, "is always incredibly difficult because of the politics of climate negotiations". "We also had a particularly difficult time this year with the geopolitical situation, referring to the fact that the Trump administration has taken a strong anti-climate stance, which put the US in a very different position to how they were in previous administrations, and changed the dynamics of the IMO a bit." Membership of the IMO includes 176 states and more than 150 intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. Dr Smith said the end result of negotiations between various member parties on the proposed scheme resulted in a significantly lower carbon price for shipping emissions than what he believed was needed. "In the final package, we've got about a $15 per ton of greenhouse gas emitted price that's coming in, and we thought that we needed somewhere between 100 and $150. "It's a significant reduction, but it still exists and it's still a global agreement, which I believe makes it the first global carbon price." As recently as February, Pacific nations had proposed a more ambitious global shipping emissions scheme. Not only had the agreed IMO framework failed to meet that, it had also failed in achieving the IMO's own greenhouse gas strategy which it revised in 2023. Smith said Pacific nations wanted a much tougher scheme to effectively drive the transition of the shipping sector to a low carbon model by charging higher costs for greenhouse gas emitters. "Their vision was to have this transition of the shipping sector driven by a carbon levy - a universal price on greenhouse gas emissions that charged for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions about $150. "Then coupling that with a mandate that reinforced the fact that this was going to be driven by stringent regulation [like] a hard fine or a penalty if you weren't reducing your emissions and driving a very steep reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, reaching nearly full decarbonisation by 2040." Dr Smith said that "steepness" in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and "power" through a heavy levy was missing. He said that in turn had effectively hampered the rate at which decarbonisation of the shipping industry would likely occur. "Because we could really subsidise some of the very expensive, or currently very expensive the early stage of decarbonisation and really enable companies to have the confidence to invest in scale. "But also use significant amounts of revenue to help low income countries, not just [small island developing states and least developed countries] like the Pacific island states, but also middle income countries, low income countries, which will need support as we go through the transition." He said these countries would need assistance to modernise and shift their their own shipping industries to a low-carbon model. The cost of doing that, as well as the economic impacts of increasing transport prices, must be factored in, he added. The finalised framework, which needs two-thirds of the IMO membership vote in October to be ratified, would cover all ships bigger than 5000 gross tons, such as largo cargo ships, in international waters if implemented. Dr Smith believes that eventually it would also cover ships smaller than 5000 gross tons. At that point, all vessels that trade internationally would be captured by the shipping emissions scheme. "It doesn't drive or change what national governments do with domestically operated ships. So coastal vessels servicing the coast of New Zealand, or ferries within New Zealand wouldn't be affected by this regulation. That's down to the national government to decide what to do," he said. "In some ways though, that exactly illustrates why it's such a significant agreement, because it's the missing emissions in international waters that no one was counting that are now, at least in a framework here." Dr Smith expectes the October vote on the final framework to be successful, despite previous opposition from several larger nations like Saudi Arabia, China, and Brazil. Following that, the scheme was set to be fully implemented in 2027. The UN said that timeframe would give "the industry time to adapt to new requirements and invest in alternative fuels and technologies".
RNZ News
26-05-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Ships to pay for their emissions
Photo: Massey University For the first time, shipping companies will have to pay for the emissions produced by their vessels, but the decision falls far short of what Pacific Island nations had fought for at the recent International Maritime Organisation talks. The world's maritime watchdog has agreed to a framework, which will be ratified later this year, where ships will be subject to a charge on their greenhouse gas emissions, increasing after a certain threshold, and will also be able to trade carbon credits with one another. The measure is forecast to raise about $10 billion US a year, which is much lower than the $60 billion a year that had been hoped for from the carbon levy proposal pitched by Pacific, and Caribbean nations. The measure also won't achieve the IMO's own Greenhouse Gas Strategy which it revised in 2023. Dr Tristan Smith, who is a Professor of Energy and Transport at the UCL Energy Institute in London, speaks to Kathryn about the agreement.
The Guardian
11-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Shipping companies to pay for carbon dioxide produced by vessels
Shipping companies will have to pay for the carbon dioxide produced by their vessels for the first time, under new rules agreed by the world's maritime watchdog. But the regulations agreed on Friday fall far short of the levy on CO2 that poor countries were hoping for, which would have funded their efforts to combat the climate crisis. Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Arab Emirates and several other petrostates opposed the new rules, but a majority of countries meeting at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in London approved a compromise deal that will mean all ships must pay for the CO2 they emit from 2028. Vessels will be subject to a charge on their greenhouse gas emissions, increasing after a certain threshold, and will also be able to trade carbon credits with one another. This is intended to encourage them to adapt their ships to use low-CO2 fuels and to operate more efficiently, for instance by slowing down and thereby using less fuel, instead of the current wasteful practice of rushing to ports then idling nearby. The measure is forecast to raise about $10bn (£7.6bn) a year, which is much lower than the $60bn a year that had been hoped for from a straightforward carbon levy. The revenues are also likely to be used within the shipping industry, to assist the introduction of cleaner technologies, rather than diverted to vulnerable countries suffering the effects of extreme weather, as a levy would have been. The emissions reductions likely to be achieved will also be modest, at least in the early years: about 8% by 2030, according to estimates from Umas, a commercial shipping consultancy. That falls far below the 20% reduction required by the IMO's climate strategy, set out in 2023. Emma Fenton, senior director at the campaign group Opportunity Green, said: 'The IMO has made a historic decision, yet ultimately one that fails climate-vulnerable countries and falls short of both the ambition the climate crisis demands, and that member states committed to just two years ago.' While shipowners might be tempted to opt for liquefied natural gas as a cleaner alternative to the heavy, dirty bunker fuels commonly used at present, the rules are expected to tighten in the 2030s to penalise LNG more heavily. Nevertheless, according to Tristan Smith, associate professor in energy and transport at University College London, the rules could encourage the use of biofuels, which can be damaging to the environment. He said: '[This is a] massive boost for biofuels, the likely least cost compliance option for 85% of the fleet for the first five years. [That means] tens of millions of tonnes more demand.' He said that further negotiations on refining the carbon trading rules between now and their formal adoption in October would be 'critical to limit the damage'. Jonas Moberg, chief executive of the Green Hydrogen Organisation, which advocates for hydrogen, said: 'The IMO's decision today sends an important signal to green fuels companies to go forward with projects. It is now clear that near-zero emissions fuels like green ammonia [a form of hydrogen fuel] will play an ever larger role in shipping in the years ahead.' Many small island states abstained on the final vote, signalling their disappointment. Simon Kofe, transport and energy minister for Tuvalu, said: 'We came as climate-vulnerable countries with the greatest need and the clearest solution [in the form of a levy]. And what did we face? Weak alternatives from the world's biggest economies – alternatives that won't get us on a pathway to the 1.5C temperature limit [above preindustrial levels]. They asked us to settle for less, while we are the ones losing the most.' They vowed to fight on for stronger measures, as the new rules must now be refined and could be subject to substantial alteration before they can be formally adopted at another meeting of the IMO this October. Albon Ishoda, special envoy for maritime decarbonisation for the Marshall Islands, said: 'We are not done. We will be back. Alongside our friends from the Caribbean, the Pacific, Africa, Central America and the UK. Still standing. Still steering.' The US, which had been present at the talks, stopped negotiating after sending a missive to other countries making clear that Donald Trump opposed the proposed carbon levy. It is not clear whether the US will accept the carbon-trading compromise agreed, but other countries are confident they can impose the new rules in any case. One developed country participant told the Guardian that the compromise deal was probably the best that could have been hoped for. The EU had been strongly in favour of a levy, but before the talks began in earnest this week changed its position to back carbon trading instead. China, Brazil and several other emerging economies opposed the levy, but voted in favour of the carbon trading compromise. Ralph Regenvanu, environment minister for Vanuatu, said: 'Let us be clear about who has abandoned 1.5C [the more stringent of the temperature goals in the 2015 Paris agreement]. Saudi Arabia, the US, and fossil fuel allies pushed down the numbers to an untenable level and blocked progress at every turn. These countries – and others – failed to support a set of measures that would have gotten the shipping industry on to a 1.5C pathway. And they turned away a proposal for a reliable source of revenue for those of us in dire need of finance to help with climate impacts.'
USA Today
05-04-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Clemson transfers impress in the Tigers annual Orange and White Spring Game
Clemson transfers impress in the Tigers annual Orange and White Spring Game Clemson wrapped up spring football on Saturday with its annual spring game at Memorial Stadium, concluding an important offseason for the program. The Tigers switched things up this year with an offense vs. defense format that included a unique scoring system for the defensive side. In the end, the offense came out on top, 33-15. This spring has been especially notable because of Clemson's transfer additions — the largest group Dabo Swinney has brought in since taking over the program. Two of those newcomers made a big impression in their spring debut. Tristan Smith, a 6-foot-5 wideout from Southeast Missouri State, turned heads with five catches for 137 yards, including a 72-yard touchdown that highlighted his size and speed. Smith brings a much-needed vertical threat to Clemson's passing game and looks like a strong addition to Garrett Riley's offense. On the other side of the ball, Alabama transfer Jeremiah Alexander showed why he was such a key pickup. The veteran linebacker led all defenders with seven tackles and was consistently around the ball. Clemson defensive coordinator Tom Allen has spoken highly of Alexander this spring, and his versatility will be a major asset moving excellent start for the Tigers' two new key players. For more, follow us on X @Clemson_Wire
