“With the crucial IMO climate discussions approaching on 26 June – 7 July, the global shipping community must support ambitious emissions reductions by 2030 and 2040 in order for the world’s shipping GHG strategy to achieve decarbonisation before 2040.”

“Right now, the Arctic is warming more than four times faster than anywhere else on Earth, with the region’s first days without Arctic summer sea ice expected to occur in the coming decade – change that will reverberate worldwide. The shipping sector must act to curb its impact on the Arctic – ships operating in and near to the Arctic should immediately switch from heavy fuel oils to distillate fuels, or to cleaner non-fossil fuels to cut black carbon emissions, which have a disproportionate climate impact on the Arctic, as well as emissions of CO2. Arctic governments, along with the fuel and shipping sector, must avoid investing in LNG infrastructure that will make it more difficult for the Arctic shipping sector to transition to low and zero emission forms of propulsion such as wind power, and cleaner non-fossil fuels in the future.”

“LNG marine fuel is closely tied to highly polluting fracking. Its use results in emissions of climate super-pollutant methane from well-to-wake. Ships using LNG will worsen the sector’s already staggering impact on the climate, the water, and the air that communities and wildlife depend on. We urge an immediate end to all investments and use of LNG. Shipping can be a powerful force for good by choosing to put their enormous resources into fossil-free, zero-emission solutions.”

“Global shipping faces a critical moment in addressing the climate crisis. We must choose between false solutions like LNG or a true zero-emissions way forward to align with a 1.5-degree pathway. Canada needs to apply the same approach domestically as it does internationally. While Canada has committed to ambitious GHG reduction targets at the IMO, it continues to buy into LNG fracking and bunkering megaprojects, which lock in methane emissions, create stranded assets, and divert investment from zero-emission solutions. It’s time to align Canada’s actions with its international ambitions and shift away from supporting LNG. A two-faced approach to the climate crisis only generates hot air without real action.”

“LNG is an inadequate bridge technology. The pillars supporting this bridge are already precarious, and the final pillar is completely absent. LNG’s methane emissions contribute to short term acceleration of climate warming. Even if derived from renewable sources, the methane leakage along the supply chain and in combustion prevent this technology’s chance of achieving a zero-emission state. Investments and regulation should prioritize the ramp-up of Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin.”

“No more gaslighting, LNG is not a viable climate solution. The fossil fuel worsens the climate crisis by emitting methane into the atmosphere. The science however is clear: we need deep cuts in methane now to avoid crossing dangerous tipping points. It’s high time for shipping to invest in real ‘zero emissions’ solutions that deliver on 1.5°C and support a just and equitable transition.”

“Switching from oil to gas is like going on a diet and switching cheese for sugar. Nearly half of the ships that run on LNG are worse than the traditional vessels they replace because of the amount of methane they leak in the air. Further investments in LNG are a bet against our future. It’s time to stop betting on the wrong horse.”

“The upcoming IMO negotiation is a key moment for climate action in shipping. For the industry to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, member states of IMO, especially major shipping nations like South Korea, need to agree on more ambitious short- to mid-term emissions reduction targets. Currently, South Korea considers LNG-fueled ships as “eco-friendly,” and aims to expand its global share of the LNG bunkering market. We urge the South Korean government to shift its expertise and resources to zero-emission fuels, and help drive global shipping decarbonization.”

“Liquefied natural gas and its toxic pollution have no place in a zero-emission future, including as a maritime fuel.

And the World Bank agrees – reporting that investing in LNG infrastructure is bad business that will risk unnecessary capital expenditures, stranded assets, and technology lock-in. Now, we need commitments from every level of government to end our fossil fuel era and accelerate clean energy development – starting with our ports. We applaud the Port of Long Beach’s public commitment that it has no intention of building a facility for LNG, but we’re calling on all U.S. ports to end fossil fuel bunkering before 2040. In Congress, new legislation will impose a pollution fee on large marine vessels offloading cargo at U.S. ports and eliminate shipping’s GHG emissions by 2040. Globally, we’re urging the International Maritime Organization to pass climate targets with teeth and correct course on the sector’s deadly pollution and climate-disrupting greenhouse gas emissions.”