Ship It Zero is a collective of US environmental groups. It has designed a new scorecard, with separate metrics for shippers and ocean carriers, for decarbonization efforts.
Many shippers, such as Costco, scored very low. And shipping lines were also graded low. The exception was Scandinavian lines and shippers. Maersk was graded B; most would agree that Maersk has been trying very hard to make moves for decarbonization, and is probably the leading liner company in that regard. Ikea also got a good grade, still only a B+ at 89/100.
Naturally both shippers and carriers were outraged, and had all sorts of criticisms of the scorecard. Most of those mentioned in the second article were the usual protestations, which no longer carry much weight. It’s abundantly clear that most carriers and shippers are making only minimal changes in practice to decarbonize.
One of the silliest criticisms is to blame it on the IMO (International Maritime Organization), a UN consortium of countries making rules for shipping. With over 130 members, it’s a surprise they can agree on anything. To say we would do more if the rules were stricter is really nonsense. Companies could do something now.
Ship It Zero points out that few shippers are even quantifying Scope 3 emissions. These are downstream emissions created by the firm’s customers. You can read an extensive and defining discussion in the Supplement to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.
How could an ocean carrier account for the emissions created by its customers? According to the standard, it could look at how the containers or bulk cargoes were being handled and transported ashore once landed. Are the drayage firms using EVs? What is the power source of the trains? How about storage and pipeline operation, is there leakage, or is excessive carbon or greenhouse gas emission occurring from pumping mechanisms? The same would apply to delivery to the ship.
For instance, Scope 3 emissions would include the GHG emissions treated by the firms producing and selling the fuel for ships. Green fuel sources would get higher scores than conventionally produced bunker fuel. Similarly if LNG were used as fuel, Scope 3 methane emissions from the bunkering sites should be considered, as well as the Scope 1 emissions onboard from burning the fuel.
Retailers can evaluate the Scope 3 GHG emissions created by their suppliers. They can also estimate the Scope 3 carbon emissions from use of the products they sell. Ikea for instance has invested in reducing the weight and materials used in packaging products to lower the carbon impact. Other firms could do the analysis with their products.
So I’m with Ship It Zero when it comes to the score. We can easily debate whether the score is considering all the factors. But there is no question that both shippers and carriers can and should do more, and stop simply greenwashing emissions.
Nick Savvides | Aug 07, 2023
Shippers and carriers unite against Ship It Zero’s green shipping shaming
Nick Savvides | Aug 03, 2023
Container lines outshine shippers in environmental standings
- SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
- PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
- PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
- PlatoESG. Automotive / EVs, Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
- BlockOffsets. Modernizing Environmental Offset Ownership. Access Here.
- Source: https://supplychainandlogistics.org/2023/08/07/ship-it-zeros-green-shipping-shaming/
