Ship-source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could increase by up to 250% from 2012 levels by 2050 owing to increasing global freight volumes. Binding international legal agreements to regulate GHGs, however, are lacking as technical solutions remain expensive and crucial industrial support is absent. In 2003, IMO adopted Resolution A.963 (23) to regulate shipping CO2 emissions via technical, operational, and market-based routes. However, progress has been slow and uncertain; there is no concrete emission reduction target or definitive action plan. Yet, a full-fledged roadmap may not even emerge until 2023. In this policy analysis, we revisit the progress of technical, operational, and market-based routes and the associated controversies. We argue that 1) a performance-based index, though good-intentioned, has loopholes affecting meaningful CO2 emission reductions driven by technical advancements; 2) using slow steaming to cut energy consumption stands out among operational solutions thanks to its immediate and obvious results, but with the already slow speed in practice, this single source has limited emission reduction potential; 3) without a technology-savvy shipping industry, a market-based approach is essentially needed to address the environmental impact. To give shipping a 50:50 chance for contributing fairly and proportionately to keep global warming below 2°C, deep emission reductions should occur soon.
Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) have the potential of accelerating the decarbonization of urban areas and promoting scalability between cities. The development and real-world implementation of such innovative concepts can be enhanced through urban energy modelling. However, assessing PEDs can be challenging, and information on this topic is scarce and fragmented. The main contribution of this paper is collecting and analyzing challenges and limitations of energy modelling software for assessing PEDs through five case studies in Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark and Canada. Case studies are assessed first from a modelling approach, then the main identified challenges and limitations of modelling tools for PEDs are discussed, and finally, various ongoing trends and research needs in this field are suggested.
The maritime transport industry is facing a series of challenges due to the phasing out of fossil fuels and the challenges from decarbonization. The proposal of proper alternatives is not a straightforward process. While the current generation of ship design software offers results, there is a clear missed potential in new software technologies like machine learning and data science. This leads to the question: how can we use modern computational technologies like data analysis and machine learning to enhance the ship design process, considering the tools from the wider industry and the industry’s readiness to embrace new technologies and solutions? The obbjective of this PD project is to bridge the critical gap between the maritime industry's pressing need for innovative solutions for a more agile Ship Design Process; and the current limitations in software tools and methodologies available via the implementation into Ship Design specific software of the new generation of computational technologies available, as big data science and machine learning.
Possibly, the aviation sector’s decarbonization challenge (see Dutch knowledge key in international climate study for tourism | CELTH) has profound implications for the ability of aviation-de-pendent outbound tour operators to attract capital and with that their ability to maintain or trans-form their current business portfolio (understood here as the current product offers and approximate carbon footprints, business models, and ownership structures present in this economic do-main). Knowledge about these (possible) investment risks and their business and policy implications is lacking. This project therefore addresses this knowledge gap by means of the following research questions.1. What is the current business portfolio of Dutch outbound tour operators?a. To what extend do Dutch outbound tour operators depend on aviation in terms of product offer and turnover?b. What is the relative carbon footprint share of aviation-based products compared to the total outbound product offer and turnover of Dutch outbound tour operators?2. What are investment risks of this business portfolio as indicated by investors?a. How do investors evaluate investment risks in relation to climate change mitigation and de-carbonisation?b. What are investment risks of the business portfolio of Dutch outbound tour operators?c. What are the reflections on and implications of these investment risks from the perspective of policymakers and tour operators?
