Carbon reduction and cost control of container shipping in response to the European Union Emission Trading System.

In response to the EU ETS, we propose a cost model considering carbon emissions for container shipping, calculating fuel consumption, carbon emissions, EUA cost, and total cost of container shipping. We take a container ship operating on a route from the Far East to Northwest Europe as a case study. Environmental and economic impacts of including maritime transport activities in the EU ETS on container shipping are assessed. Results show that carbon emissions from the selected container ship using methanol are the smallest, and total cost of the selected container ship using methanol is the lowest. Among MGO, HFO, LNG, and methanol, methanol is the most environmentally and cost-effective option. Using LNG has greater environmental benefit, while using HFO has greater economic benefit. Compared to MGO, carbon reduction effects of LNG and methanol are 14.2% and 57.1%, and their cost control effects are 7.8% and 26.5%. Compared to HFO, carbon reduction effects of LNG and methanol are 11.7% and 55.8%, and the cost control effect of methanol is 9.3%. Speed reduction is effective in achieving carbon reduction and cost control of container shipping only when the sailing speed of the selected container ship is greater than 8.36 knots. Once the sailing speed is less than this threshold, speed reduction will increase carbon emissions and total cost of container shipping. This model can assess the environmental and economic impacts of including maritime transport activities in the EU ETS on container shipping and explore the measures to achieve carbon reduction and cost control of container shipping in response to the EU ETS.