Opaque ICOMIA
The first reaction of nearly all fossil fuel-using sectors is to identify biofuels as their key and most promising solution to the pressure to respond to climate change. It therefore isn’t surprising that Icomia/ricardo’s report reaches this finding too. But it’s a standard failing of any study that looks ‘one sector at a time’ because it omits that the same finite and constrained supply of biomass isn’t sufficient for the combined needs of trucking, aviation, leisure marine, merchant shipping, agriculture, steel, cement etc, even before wider pressures on that biomass (feeding a growing population, substituting oil in plastics, creating negative emissions) have been taken into account.
By focusing on today and the immediate next 10 years, the study avoids having to confront/acknowledge this fundamental obstacle to their conclusions. This is not a problem that benefits from being looked at in such a short-term window. Instead, it has to start with a vision of the zero-emission solution, which is then worked back from so fleet and infrastructure can gradually be adapted rather than leaving it so late that they are either dumped as a leisure activity or expensively scrapped or retrofitted.
The brutal context for all of this is that it’s one minute to midnight in the climate crisis. 50 ‘climate vulnerable’ countries face an existential threat and all countries face immeasurable disruption, if/as we first pass the 1.5°C temperature threshold and then pass irreversible tipping points. How can any activity in a rich economy, let alone a luxury goods/leisure activity, continue its ‘sustainable development’ if it isn’t at the vanguard of efforts to decarbonise, not skulking around hoping to mop up a finite supply of biomass?
There are likely important results and findings in ICOMIA’S work. Batteries, hydrogen and hybrid all have their shortcomings, especially if used naively or if their future evolution and alternative uses aren’t included in scenarios and assumptions. But sadly ICOMIA have hidden any content that would enable interrogation and discussion of this behind a paywall and told us all to trust them/ricardo that the only relevant and accurate information is in their synopsis. This ‘trust’ in the result is terrifying, particularly given their clear objective to influence the policy and industry debates.
At best, ICOMIA’S study is opaque and poorly scoped. YM’S efforts to shed so much light on this key topic are to be commended, but better quality evidence and critical analysis are needed, along with innovation in technology, design, owning and operating boats. This could start by ICOMIA making the full report freely available to allow proper scrutiny, but hopefully it will also trigger more studies and the evidence-based discussion needed to provide a clear path forwards. Looking forward to further discussions.
Dr Tristan Smith is a naval architect by training, Fellow of the Institute of Marine Engineers Scientists and Technologists, and an associate professor at UCL and Director at UMAS. The research group he leads produces analysis on the decarbonisation of shipping for UN agencies, multiple governments and industry stakeholders.