22.10.2024

Shipping: climate-neutral by 2050

Building design

The 175 member states have decided to make international shipping climate-neutral by 2050. Image source: Unsplash

Shipping associations have committed to zero CO2 emissions by 2050. However, the sector faces major challenges before shipping becomes climate-neutral. Read here to find out how this could be achieved.

On July 7, 2023, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by around 2050. The decision was taken in London after lengthy deliberations. There are also interim targets with milestones for the years 2030 (at least a 20 percent reduction) and 2040 (at least a 70 percent reduction).

The World Shipping Organization’s new climate protection roadmap provides for a price on greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 from 2027. Global standards for climate-friendly fuels for ships are also to be developed. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, the IMO has the power to prescribe globally binding rules for shipping. Previously, the organization only envisaged a 50% reduction by 2050.

Accordingly, the decision to achieve climate-neutral shipping by 2050 was viewed very positively. The member states have thus recognized that there is no alternative to climate neutrality. The organization’s new climate strategy literally states: “Greenhouse gas emissions from international maritime transport should peak as soon as possible and be reduced to zero by or around 2050, i.e. close to 2050, taking into account different national circumstances.”

Despite the success, it became clear during the long negotiations that there are major differences between the 175 member states of the IMO. The decision not to set a fixed target for 2050 is therefore considered a compromise formula that made the agreement possible in the first place. Due to their geographical location and economic conditions, some countries cannot or do not want to set the same pace for climate-neutral shipping as the member states of the European countries, for example. As a result, minor deviations are possible when it comes to achieving climate neutrality.

According to Nabu, the IMO has missed a great opportunity, as the agreed reduction targets do not correspond to the 1.5-degree target of the Paris Agreement. This makes it all the more important to implement an international CO2 price for shipping. The IMO supports such pricing, but has not yet commented on which instrument could be used for this. A direct climate tax on CO2 emissions or a system for verifying and trading emissions are conceivable.

The EU is one of the parties seeking such a system for the shipping sector. According to the IMO, a “pricing mechanism for maritime greenhouse gas emissions” is to be adopted by 2025 and come into force in 2027. This should reinforce the message to the shipping industry and fuel manufacturers that the time to invest is now. An internationally standardized regulation for emissions pricing would be ideal.

In addition to taxation or penalties on CO2 emissions, there is another way to make shipping climate-neutral, namely by using other fuels and energy suppliers. In 2021, for example, the first commercial container ship was refueled with a CO2-neutral synthetic gas. Before that, the “ElbBlue” ran on fossil liquefied natural gas (LNG). The new fuel is produced chemically by generating hydrogen using wind energy. Excess CO2 comes from a biogas plant to create a chemical reaction that produces climate-neutral SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas). There are no fossil fuels in the entire production chain.

In Germany, the federal government is promoting research and development into future energy sources in the shipping industry. In addition to SNG, ammonia, hydrogen and methanol are also being considered. The problem is that it is not yet profitable to refuel ships with the climate-friendly SNG fuel. This is because its price is around five times higher than that of fossil liquid gas. There is also a lack of production facilities and the necessary infrastructure for refueling. Nevertheless, no major technical conversion is required for the changeover.

Individual shipping companies and businesses have climate targets that are even more ambitious than the IMO targets. For example, the Danish container shipping company Maersk and the cruise line Aida Cruises want to operate climate-neutral shipping by 2040 and the German company Hapag-Lloyd by 2045. As many of the largest boats emit several hundred tons of CO2 per day, there is great potential for reduction here.

Around 90 percent of global trade in goods is now handled by ship. The huge container ships are powered by heavy fuel oil or marine diesel, and some are also powered by liquid LNG. Although LNG has a slightly better carbon footprint, it is still a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases and is also unhealthy for the sea. Overall, international shipping is responsible for around 3 percent of global CO2 emissions.

Various factors play a role in climate-neutral solutions in shipping. These include weight, space requirements and fuel availability. Batteries have so far only been used in shipping for short distances. For example, the Scandlines shipping company is planning to operate a battery-powered ferry between Denmark and Germany in the near future.

For longer distances, fuels such as ammonia or methanol are more realistic, although ammonia is currently still too dangerous. Green methanol has better prospects in the medium term, as does hydrogen. New ships, new engines and new infrastructure will be needed, which will probably affect the cost of shipping and the price of goods. Further savings are possible through improved routes and mechanical optimization of ships as well as intelligent port selection. The IMO’s decision to make this transition fair and equitable will thus be put to the test.

Read more: When it comes to the ocean, there’s no getting around discussing sea level rise – MVRDV presents proposed solutions to sea level rise in Vancouver.

07.11.2024

Architecture and the trolls

Building design

Architectural discourse

Architects and we as viewers attach great importance to occupying a special discursive position. “Architects have their own language” was one of the conclusions of a survey that we at Baumeister conducted with well-known architects in 2011. We cultivate our “discourse” and assume that its level is higher than the common chatter out there. […]

Architects and we as viewers attach great importance to occupying a special discursive position. “Architects have their own language” was one of the conclusions of a survey that we at Baumeister conducted with well-known architects in 2011. We cultivate our “discourse” and assume that its level is higher than the common chatter out there.

But is that still true in the age of social media? You get the impression: not automatically anymore. As soon as there is a debate about architecture on Facebook and the like, the rhetorical quick-fire is not far away. The rapidly escalating debate about the Herzog de Meuron design for the Berlin Kulturforum was a good example of this. Now Volker Staab is finding out how quickly an architectural competition decision can become a net political issue – with all the unpleasant side effects. The striking but not demonstratively “historically aware” design for the ensemble around Cologne Cathedral is the subject of heated debate. And it is not always on a level playing field.

The debate first arose on the Facebook page of the Cologne information platform www.koelnarchitektur.de. One user wrote: “a tragedy… no, hell paired with cultivated boredom”. “a mosque would probably be nicer”, another user added.

Anyone who publishes online will know: This kind of expression of opinion is rather mild in the rhetoric of the Internet. Nevertheless, the creators of Kölnarchitektur were not amused and felt compelled to reprimand their own community. “I dislike your attitude…extremely,” wrote one editor (again on Facebook), “especially as it by no means meets the standards of our readers, who, knowing the location and history, see more than blocks and grid facades…Let’s keep it level.”

The reaction of the Cologne-based architecture journalist is understandable. In fact, debates on the Internet quickly lose form and any kind of scale. There is uninhibited trolling. Even when discussing architecture. I recently dealt with this topic myself in a book on architecture and communication. The desire for a discursive style consensus is understandable. Especially when, as in the case of Cologne, a political note is added, branding contemporary architecture as an expression of an uninhibited delight in the forms of historical clichés. This could quickly throw an architectural discussion into the argumentative waters of the new right.

But this is precisely where I think there is an opportunity. So let me put it provocatively: How would it be if we as architecture journalists saw discursive trolling as an opportunity? In other words, if we manage to make the vision of a modern, non-traditionalist country heard by discussing architecture? It is precisely this vision that is currently under attack from AfD and co. And the advocates of an open society occasionally seem to be running out of arguments. Architecture that gives precisely this society a profile is quickly treated by AfD supporters as a symptom of decay. However, it is ultimately an expression of precisely what makes this (our) society attractive and appealing. This could be highlighted – and thus counter the trolls. But it would mean that we as discussants would have to do more than just share the same arguments with the same friends – and meet the vulgar rest with indignation.

24.10.2024

Product

Baumeister 6 – Home as a construction site

Building design

The June issue of Baumeister is dedicated to the German Pavilion in Venice and provides exclusive insights into the concept and the history of its creation.

An unusual cover adorns our June issue. Instead of elegant architecture, we see a pile of stones. The cover picture is a suggestive snapshot from the German Pavilion in Venice. It opened last Friday and focuses on Germany as a country of migration in response to the refugee crisis.

The German Pavilion thus makes an important contribution to broadening society’s understanding of the current migration processes. It addresses the architectural and urban planning implications of the fact that Germany is also a country of immigration – whether we like it or not.

Baumeister, in collaboration with the curators of the German Pavilion, is also dedicated to this topic. We present the eight central theses by journalist Doug Saunders, which also form a core part of the exhibition in the Giardini in Venice. In advance, the Baumeister editorial team spoke to Doug Saunders about his theses.

In an exclusive essay, the curators, a team from the Deutsches Architekturmuseum in Frankfurt led by director Peter Cachola Schmal and curator Oliver Elser, explain the concept of the pavilion – and the title of their exhibition, “Making Heimat”. The essay also provides an insight into the radical implementation of the concept, which represents one of the biggest interventions in the history of the German Pavilion.