The Loadstar explains: onboard carbon capture and storage
So, what’s new in fuels, then? Amid the battleground of future fuels, a new technology is ...
GM: RAISING THE ROOF GGM: IN FULL THROTTLE GZIM: MAERSK BOOST KNIN: READ-ACROSSMAERSK: NOT ENOUGHMAERSK: GUIDANCE UPGRADEZIM: ROLLERCOASTERCAT: HEAVY DUTYMAERSK: CATCHING UP PG: DESTOCKING PATTERNSPG: HEALTH CHECKWTC: THE FALLGXO: DEFENSIVE FWRD: RALLYING ON TAKEOVER TALKODFL: STEADY YIELDVW: NEW MODEL NEEDEDWTC: TAKING PROFIT
GM: RAISING THE ROOF GGM: IN FULL THROTTLE GZIM: MAERSK BOOST KNIN: READ-ACROSSMAERSK: NOT ENOUGHMAERSK: GUIDANCE UPGRADEZIM: ROLLERCOASTERCAT: HEAVY DUTYMAERSK: CATCHING UP PG: DESTOCKING PATTERNSPG: HEALTH CHECKWTC: THE FALLGXO: DEFENSIVE FWRD: RALLYING ON TAKEOVER TALKODFL: STEADY YIELDVW: NEW MODEL NEEDEDWTC: TAKING PROFIT
Anyone using shipping line carbon calculators should think again, according to research by Sea Intelligence, because the majority of them are “useless”.
“They are riddled with absurdly poor data quality,” said the consultancy, pointing in particular to sailing distances, which vary wildly. It also revealed that while OOCL’s calculator shows emissions of 96.84 tons of CO2, CMA CGM – on the same route, with the same ship – emits just 56.80 tons. In a post on LinkedIn, Lars Jensen wrote: “No one should use them as basis for decision making, and no one should believe that they can be used for any kind of environmental comparison across carriers.”
In the consultancy’s Sunday Spotlight research, it concluded: “We were sincerely hoping we could point to at least a single shining light in this decrepit miasma of disappointment, but we believe everyone has failed here; there are no winners.” The story is bought to you by Splash24/7.
Comment on this article