IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/marpmg/v39y2012i4p443-460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of proposed CO 2 emission reduction scenarios on capital expenditure

Author

Listed:
  • Peter N. Hoffmann
  • Magnus S. Eide
  • Øyvind Endresen

Abstract

The International Maritime Organisation is currently working on establishing regulations for international shipping regarding greenhouse gas emissions, and a cost-effectiveness approach has been suggested as one method for determining the necessary reductions in emissions from shipping. Previous studies have investigated the CO 2 emission reduction potential for the world shipping fleet up to 2030 and the associated marginal abatement cost levels. To analyse the cost implications of different emission reduction scenarios, this study has calculated the emission reduction potential and additional capital expenditure for 25 CO 2 emission reduction measures applied to 59 ship segments. The expected fleet development over time, keeping track of new ships built from 2010 to 2030 and Existing ships built prior to 2010 and still in operation by 2030, have been modelled. Two alternative approaches to find the cost-effective potential in the world shipping fleet have been applied. One approach is to implement only measures which in themselves are cost-effective (measure-by-measure), and another approach is to implement measures as long as the net savings from cost-effective measures balance the costs of non-cost-effective measures (set of measures). The results demonstrate that by 2030, the majority (93%) of the reduction potential will be related to new ships. Our results show that the measure-by-measure approach would decrease the CO 2 emissions by 30% for new ships while the set-of-measures approach with 53% (of the 2030 baseline emissions of 1316 Mt). The implication of achieving such emission reduction is an increase in the capital expenditure on New ships by 6% (USD 183 billion) and 27% (USD 761 billion), respectively, in the period 2010 to 2030 compared to a business-as-usual scenario. The measure-by-measure approach yields a 5% decrease in CO 2 emission per 1% increase in capital expenditure, while the set-of-measures approach yields a 2% decrease per 1% increase. This is due to the significant variation in capital intensity of the different measures, ranging from almost zero to USD 200 per tonne of CO 2 averted. The results of this study are useful for the shipping industry to assess the economic burden that must be shouldered in order to implement abatement measures under different CO 2 emission reduction scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter N. Hoffmann & Magnus S. Eide & Øyvind Endresen, 2012. "Effect of proposed CO 2 emission reduction scenarios on capital expenditure," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 443-460, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:marpmg:v:39:y:2012:i:4:p:443-460
    DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2012.690081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03088839.2012.690081
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03088839.2012.690081?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raimonds Aronietis & Christa Sys & Edwin van Hassel & Thierry Vanelslander, 2016. "Forecasting port-level demand for LNG as a ship fuel: the case of the port of Antwerp," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Johnson, Hannes & Styhre, Linda, 2015. "Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through decreased time in port," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 167-178.
    3. Ching-Chiao Yang & Hui-Huang Tai & Wen-Hsing Chiu, 2014. "Factors influencing container carriers' use of coastal shipping," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 192-208, March.
    4. Kornelis Blok & Angélica Afanador & Irina van der Hoorn & Tom Berg & Oreane Y. Edelenbosch & Detlef P. van Vuuren, 2020. "Assessment of Sectoral Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Potentials for 2030," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    5. Peter Andersson & Pernilla Ivehammar, 2017. "Dynamic route planning in the Baltic Sea Region – A cost-benefit analysis based on AIS data," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 19(4), pages 631-649, December.
    6. Su-Han Woo & Hee-Seok Bang & Sally Martin & Kevin X. Li, 2013. "Evolution of research themes in Maritime Policy & Management—1973--2012," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 200-225, May.
    7. Orestis Schinas & Niklas Bergmann, 2021. "The Short-Term Cost of Greening the Global Fleet," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-32, August.
    8. Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor & He, Junliang & Yan, Wei, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of energy efficiency measures for maritime shipping using a metamodel based approach with different data sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    9. Taih-Cherng Lirn & Hsiao-Wen Lin & Kuo-Chung Shang, 2014. "Green shipping management capability and firm performance in the container shipping industry," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 159-175, March.
    10. Océane Balland & Cecilia Girard & Stein Ove Erikstad & Kjetil Fagerholt, 2015. "Optimized selection of vessel air emission controls--moving beyond cost-efficiency," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 362-376, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:marpmg:v:39:y:2012:i:4:p:443-460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TMPM20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.