Industry coalition SEA-LNG is firing back against a World Bank study that sees LNG as “likely to play a limited role” in decarbonizing shipping and recommends countries should “avoid new public policy that supports LNG as a bunker fuel” and focus on future zero-emission fuels.
The coalition stresses that LNG fuels reduce up to 23% of GHG emissions, and that bio- and synthetic LNG offer low-risk, incremental pathways to net zero.
“Waiting for future fuels and not fully utilizing LNG, which is safe, proven, competitive, and available today, is a mistake,” says Peter Keller, chairman of SEA-LNG. “We need to take advantage today of the confirmed reduction in GHG of up to 23% (Well-to-Wake) and the obvious air quality benefits of LNG as a maritime fuel. To continue to wait for unproven alternatives only makes the current GHG and local emissions problems worse.”
Sea-LNG says the World Bank report attempts to prescribe solutions and predict the timing of future technology development.
SEA-LNG believes strongly that the transition to future fuels must not follow this prescriptive approach and says, “It is far too early to decide what the real potential of various alternatives fuels will be for a highly complex, hard-to-abate, global industry.
“Theoretical arguments are an important starting position, however, the 50+ years of proven, safe operational experience that the industry has with LNG speaks for itself. Further, bio- and synthetic LNG offer an incremental pathway for the decarbonization of the global shipping industry — one that is already being implemented by a growing number of shipowners,” says SEA-LNG. “The existing LNG infrastructure is being used today, and is interchangeable with its bio- and synthetic alternatives, thereby providing a low risk, long-term decarbonization alternative.”
“By focusing on theoretical, unproven solutions, the World Bank stifles innovation in technologies that can also provide answers in the decades ahead,” argues the coalition. “We strongly encourage all institutions around the globe that have a place in the policy debate to set standards and targets that drive real and immediate reductions in GHG emissions, and not prescribe specific technology solutions that are untried and unproven in the real world.”