X

国际海事信息网

扫描二维码关注微信公众号、微博

随时随地获取更多资讯和服务

让我们成为您身边的海事信息专家

  首页 >> 海外传真 >> 正文

运价翻倍的零碳航运,如何应对?

作者:   发布时间:2019-09-18    浏览量:736   字体大小:  A+   A- 

运价翻倍的零碳航运,如何应对?
图片来自网络,版权属于原作者

来源:Hellenic Shipping News 2019-09-14

翻译:国际海事信息网 黄子倩 张运鸿
 
        本周早些时候,国际航运工会(International Chamber of Shipping)的代表们在一场会议上发布警告,为了实现全球气候变化目标,托运人应做好运价翻倍的准备。
 
        英国能源转型委员会(Energy Transitions Commission)主席特纳勋爵(Lord Turner)曾表示航运业是全球经济中最难脱碳的领域之一。尽管如此,他仍表示如果托运人和买方愿意接受双倍运价的话,科技和零碳燃油(例如氨能和绿色氢能)的使用可以使航运业在2050年实现零碳。
 
        由于运价只占大部分商品零售价的一小部分,特纳勋爵相信买方能够顺利接受这点涨幅。
 
        他补充道:“航运业已经在应对高度波动的运价,在未来三十年内运价翻倍并无异常。”
 
        特纳勋爵补充道:“航运业的运价每年都有很大波动。”他指出在全球经济危机期间,BDI指数在2008年暴跌超过90%(2008年5月20日达到11793点,同年11月跌至700点),但“随后又涨了六倍”。
(注:文中此处为2018年5月20日,经查应为2008年5月20日)
 
        特纳勋爵表示,这些波动“被经济吸收了。未来30年,为了零碳航运我们要接受更高的运价。”
 
        特纳勋爵认为,为了确保竞争环境公平且没有先动劣势(first-mover disadvantage),需要新的碳税和/或国际海事组织(IMO)规定,他坚称“随着时间的推移,人们将逐渐接受更高的运价。”
 
但是托运人能接受涨价吗?
        意大利滚装船巨头Grimaldi Group的董事总经理(managing director) Emanuele Grimaldi指出托运人不可能接受运价上涨。向客户解释运价翻了一倍使“极其困难”的。
 
        然而,ICS副主席兼挪威航运公司Torvald Klaveness的CEO Lasse Kristoffersen表示航运业可以轻松消化更高的运价。“那种认为运价翻倍就挣不到钱的想法是很荒谬的,”他又补充道海岬型船今年收益猛增,过去十年内,油价变动也很剧烈。
 
        他补充说:“没有人饿死,没有人闹罢工,大家都吃得上饭。”
 
        国际海事组织的目标是“在本世纪尽快”消灭温室气体(GHG)排放,到2050年,全球航运业温室气体(GHG)排放量相较2008年至少下降50%。
 
是否需要税务或监管?
        当被问及如果被强制要求减少碳排放(甚至要早于IMO目标前完成),船东会更倾向于服从新规定还是缴纳新税时,Grimaldi表示市场一直鼓励运营商减少碳排放量。他警告说,对航运业加征新税可能会促使运输方式更多地转向空运和陆运,增加净排放量。
 
        “燃油费是我们最大的支出,因此我们正极力减少这部分开支。财务、人力、船舶费用和燃油费差不多。我们不需要靠缴税来提高业绩。无论怎样我们都需要提高业绩。我们仍是最高效的运输方式。需要缴纳的税多了,空运和陆运量就会增加,因此我们要严肃对待。”
 
减少碳排放的重要性
        伦敦国际航运周(London International Shipping Week)上,知名气候学家Anders Hammer Strommen向与会者概述了到2050年全球气温升高1.5℃和2℃带来的不同变化。随后与会者就运价问题展开辩论。在前一种情况下,北极的冰雪在一个世纪内就会完全消融。而后一种情况下,在北半球的夏季消融周期会变成十年。
 
        美国环保协会英国办公室(Environmental Defense Fund, UK)欧洲执行主任(executive director for Europe)Baroness Bryony Worthington告诉与会代表,对航运业来说“很明显,改变在即”,她敦促建立监管机构来更好地推进改革。
 
        “气候变化方面最难的事之一就是让大家共同行动,”她表示,拥有一个公平的竞争环境并统一规则是推动变革的好方法。”
 
        特纳勋爵表示,他欢迎IMO到2050年温室气体排放减半的承诺,但“我们认为应该是零排放。”
 
        “怎么实现这个目标?我认为航运业在转型过程中既面临一个主要问题也具有一个主要优势。问题在于该行业的分散化。船东和运营商的复杂性、短期合同等。”
 
        他认为,这导致了经济学家所称的“委托-代理问题(principal-agent problem)”,本质上是运营商不愿率先采取行动,把竞争优势拱手让给对手。在许多行业,这使得我们很难激励个体市场参与者采取行动,尤其是在规则因地区而异的情况下。
 
国际海事组织必须推动零碳改革
        “但是,航运业的巨大优势在于,它是一个受到监管的行业,拥有国际海事组织,”他补充道。“国际海事组织有能力制定规则,新船设计标准,能效,最终的燃料成本,或者燃料是否必须来自零碳能源。
 
        “那么我们需要做什么?”我们将鼓励国际海事组织和航运业超越减排50%的惊人承诺,并设想100%减排的情况。我们需要对不同的技术有一个更清晰的认识,并为未来的发展蓝图提供指导。”
 
        他呼吁加大对节能船舶和可燃烧氨能、绿色氢能等替代燃料的船用发动机的研究投入。
 
        他补充说:“我们需要新的规定来促进新船减排,并确保所有新船都能使用新燃料。”
 
        “总的来说,这并不像航空领域那样难。在航空领域,飞机引擎非常特殊,非常珍贵,它必须使用与传统航空燃料完全相同的化学替代品。”
 
        相比之下,他指出,船用发动机更强劲,燃料选择更多样,发展空间更大。
 
         “我认为,我们还需要其他种类的碳定价(carbon pricing)或燃料管理规定,促使所有航运公司共同朝着零碳燃料迈进。” 他补充道,“我们还需要港口配合,提供电力、氢能和氨能,这些都是推动零碳航运所必需的。
 
        “如果我们能做到以上一切,我们绝对有信心航运业可以在本世纪中叶实现零碳工业,就像在其他经济领域一样。”
 
       (本文版权归国际海事信息网所有,图片版权归原作者,转载请注明出处。)
 
Zero-carbon shipping will double freight rates
 
Shippers should prepare for 100 percent hikes in freight costs in pursuit of global climate change goals, delegates at an International Chamber of Shipping conference were warned earlier this week.
 
Lord Turner, chair of the U.K.’s Energy Transitions Commission, said shipping was one of the hardest sectors in the global economy to decarbonize. Even so, he argued that technology and the use of zero-carbon fuels such as ammonia and green hydrogen could make shipping zero-carbon by 2050 if shippers and consumers accepted a doubling of transport costs.
 
Turner believes that because the cost of shipping constitutes such a small component of the retail price of most products, consumers will easily swallow such a marginal increase.
 
And he adds that, as the shipping industry already copes with highly volatile rates, a doubling in freight rates over 30 years would not be outside existing norms.
 
“This is an industry where freight rates vary very significantly year by year,” he added. He noted that during the global financial crisis, the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) lost over 90 percent of its value in 2008 (it reached a record 11,793 May 20, 2018, before sinking to just 700 points in November of that year), but “then increased sixfold.”
 
These fluctuations, he said, “are absorbed by the economy. Over 30 years we will have to accept higher prices to get to zero-carbon shipping.”
 
To ensure a level playing field and no first-mover disadvantage, Lord Turner believes new carbon taxes and/or International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations will be required, insisting that “gradually over time higher rates will be accepted.”
 
But will shippers accept higher costs?
Emanuele Grimaldi, managing director of Italy-based ro-ro giant Grimaldi Group, countered that shippers were unlikely to accept higher prices. Explaining a 100 percent increase in costs to customers would be “extremely difficult.”
 
However, Lasse Kristoffersen, vice chair of ICS and CEO of Norway-based shipping company Torvald Klaveness, said shipping could easily absorb higher freight rates. “The idea that there won’t be any money on the table if freight rates double is absurd,” he said, adding that capesize earnings had surged this year and, over the last decade, fuel prices had also varied enormously.
 
“No one starved, there were no strikes, there was still food on the table,” he added.
 
The International Maritime Organization is already targeting the phase out of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions “as soon as possible this century,” and a reduction in GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 50 percent by 2050 compared to 2008.
 
To tax or regulate?
When asked if owners would prefer new regulations or new taxes if they were to be compelled to lower carbon emissions even faster than IMO targets, Grimaldi said the market was already encouraging operators to cut their carbon footprint. And new taxes on shipping, he warned, could prompt a modal shift to air and road which would increase net emissions.
 
“Fuel is our biggest cost, so we are already working extremely hard to reduce this cost. The cost of finance and people and the vessel equals the cost of the fuel. We don’t need to be taxed to improve our performance. We need to improve our performance irrespective. We are still the most efficient mode of transport. More tax could see more air and road transport, so we have to be very careful.”
 
Why cutting carbon matters
The freight rate debate during London International Shipping Week took place after renowned climate scientist Anders Hammer Strommen outlined the difference between a world that sees a 1.5°C increase in global temperature by 2050 versus an increase of 2°C. Under the former scenario, for example, ice in the Arctic would melt completely once a century. Under the latter scenario, this would happen during the Northern Hemisphere summer once a decade.
 
Baroness Bryony Worthington, executive director for Europe, Environmental Defense Fund, UK, told delegates “it’s clear that change is coming” to shipping and she argued that having a global regulator would make reform easier.
 
“One of the hardest things with climate change is getting everyone to act together,” she said. “Having a level playing field and one voice on rules is a great way to drive change.”
 
Lord Turner said he welcomed the IMO’s commitment to target a 50 percent GHG reduction by 2050 but “our argument is that it should be zero carbon.”
 
“How do we get to that? I think the shipping industry starts with one major problem in terms of the transition, and one major advantage. The problem is the fragmentation of the industry. The complexity of owners and operators, short-term contracts etc.”
 
He argued that this results in what economists call “principal-agent problem”, essentially a reluctance of operators to be the first mover in case competitive advantage is lost to rivals. In many industries, this makes it difficult to incentivize individual market participants to act, particularly when rules vary by geography.
 
The IMO must drive zero-carbon reform
“But, the great advantage that the shipping industry has, is that it is a regulated industry and it has the IMO,” he added. “And the IMO is capable of setting regulations for the design of new ships, how energy efficient they have to be, and eventually of what the cost of fuel should be, or whether the fuel has to be from zero carbon sources.
 
“So what do we need to do? We will say we will encourage the IMO and the shipping industry to move beyond the fantastic commitment to 50 percent and to envision that it is possible to go to a 100 percent reduction. We need a clearer sense of what the different technologies might be and guidance on what the road map is going to be.”
 
He called for more investment in research into energy efficient shipping and marine engines that can burn alternative fuels such as ammonia and green hydrogen.
 
“We need regulation to drive all the new ships to greater levels of efficiency, and to make sure that all of them can burn the new fuels,” he added.
 
“On a whole that’s not as much a challenge as it is in aviation. In aviation an airline engine is so specific, it’s so precious that it has to have the precise chemical equivalent of conventional jet fuel.”
 
By contrast, he noted that marine engines are more robust and can manage variety in fuel inputs, which can be further developed.
 
“We will also need, I believe, some category of other carbon pricing or regulation of fuel mandate which forces all the shipping companies together to move toward forms of zero carbon fuel,” he added. “And we will also need coordination from the ports to be providers of either the electricity or the hydrogen or the ammonia which will be required to drive zero-carbon shipping.
 
“Provided we get all that, however, we are absolutely confident that in shipping, as in other sectors of the economy, we can have a zero-carbon industry by mid-century.”
 

来源:simic