IMO shipping emissions

Can anyone shed some light on this? Did UK and others really call for up 100% reduction in shipping emissions? Even if solar panels were 100% efficient they would not drive container ships. Full BBC article here:
Shipping in 'historic' climate deal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43759923

Extract here:
The United States, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and a few other countries had not wanted to see a target for cutting shipping emissions at all.
By contrast the European Union, including Britain, and small island states had pushed for a cut of 70-100%.
So the deal for a 50% reduction is a compromise which some argue is unrealistic while others say does not far enough.

It looks like shipping is the climate enemy, but I once did a comparison between cars at 30mph in suburban traffic and container ships at 25knots and (if I recall) ships were about twice as efficient on a gross weight basis and many times more efficient on a payload basis. The data for the ship came from a thread on this forum and the data for cars was gleaned from several sources online. Sorry all, but i don't want to find that data all over again!
Comments, opinions welcome.

 

Well. seeing how I was able to able to escape a slander suit and being discredited in a recent "attack" on a certain foreign naval architect in his mixing of politics and physics, I'll go go a step further in my assessment of the head of the US delegation to the talks, Jeffrey Lantz. Who made clear his country's opposition to the deal - "...in addition we note that achieving significant emissions reductions, in the international shipping sector, would depend on technological innovation and further improvements in energy efficiency". That is pure crock. Whether knowingly or not, that statement, in context, has no wiggle room. He is a flat out acting idiotically by portraying it as true.

A single beam joining two ships, by incorporating a large shock absorber into it and attaching both ends of the beam onto two overgrown trailer hitches (with safety "ropechain") mounted near midship on the opposing sides of both, gives a strong attachment point to construct a very simple solar array, using only existing technology, with enough power generation to drive both 24/7. Once he can satisfy himself of that FACT, even if it takes a 14 year old expert witness in court to explain it to him, I expect a full retraction of his statement or at least the word "WE" removed from it. Otherwise, he can feel free to remain an idiot and swallow his own BS (opinion).

 

I think this report is being confused with the existing legislation of EEDI. Explained in full here:
Energy Efficiency Measures http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx
and here
EEDI & SEEMP explained https://www.marpol-annex-vi.com/eedi-seemp/

Which is applicable to every vessel no matter the country. It is basically introducing a system similar to that which now exits on cars, an emission test and having engines that do not produce harm pollution.

Ways to assist and minimise the effects are given here as it is not so easy to achieve for some:
https://www.jstra.jp/html/PDF/ws20150722_4.pdf

 

I seem to remember a call for all shipping transiting to/from inland ports to be able to operate emissions-free. That bit could have gotten lost, or been left off to make them sound like Loony-Tunes.

The reporting of such calls for action does seem to alternate between the banal and the more outlandish demands. I get the feeling that the voice of reason is not the one being sought out for public exposure.

extracted from - Port Strategy | Making the climate call count for ports http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/environment/climate-call

Can't we do any better than that? I'm pretty sure that whoever-she-is can if given the chance.