Act Now to Achieve IMO Carbon Targets – ITF

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by “at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008” aligns the shipping sector with the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Strong actions are needed. The IMO strategy relies on technological innovation and alternative energy sources for global shipping, and support of governments and shipping customers will be essential to realise this new level of ambition.

With intuitive timing, a tremendous amount of guidance has just been made available by the International Transport Forum, releasing a series of reports over the last month that provide comprehensive analysis of the options and actions needed by a host of players in the global maritime industry. They suggest a path forward based on assessments of advancing technologies and best practices in operational management and government policy being used around the world to tackle the issue.

Decarbonising Maritime Transport – Pathways to zero-carbon shipping by 2035

This report explores the full range measures to effectively reduce shipping emissions, which represent 2.6% of total global emissions, and offers recommendations on policies to incentivise decarbonisation. The business-as-usual scenario projects 23% growth in carbon emissions from international shipping by 2035, yet with maximum deployment of currently known technologies it’s possible to reach almost complete decarbonisation in that time.

Alternative fuels and renewable energy can deliver much of required reductions, combined with technological and operational measures to improve energy efficiency. Clear guidance and interventions from governments will be essential to accelerate commercial viability, technical feasibility and investment in sustainable technologies and fuels.

The associated Case of Sweden report analyses why the Swedish shipping industry are pioneers of low-carbon shipping and how other countries can learn from their success. Their remarkable progress in LNG, electric and methanol-powered vessels can be explained by stakeholder cooperation between shipping companies and large Swedish shippers dedicated to green supply chains, along with financial support and regulation from government.

ship CO2 visual

Visualisation of CO2e emission across global shipping routes in 2015. Source: ITF

Reducing Shipping Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Lessons from Port-Based Incentives

Ports have a crucial role to play in facilitating the reduction of shipping emissions. This report identifies port-based incentives currently in place, examining their features and impacts. Most common is the environmentally-differentiated port fee, applied in 28 of the 100 largest ports, yet impacts on global shipping emissions are only marginal. It argues for wider, harmonised application of green port fees, green berth-allocation policies, green procurement and carbon pricing schemes to help enforce the “polluter pays” principle.

Fuelling Maritime Shipping with Liquefied Natural Gas – The Case of Japan

Japan is positioning itself to become the Asian hub for bunkering LNG-fuelled ships on the main East-West trade lanes. Still a marginal share of the world’s fleet, 118 LNG-fuelled vessels currently operating globally will double by 2020 and CMA CGM’s order of nine LNG-enabled mega-container ships is expected to be followed by competitors. Other Asian ports are developing similar bunkering facilities, with Singapore and Japan collaborating on an Asian bunkering network.

LNG’s growth is driven by regulations to reduce SOx and NOx emissions from maritime transport. Its advantages over conventional fuels can reduce ship carbon emissions by 20% but “methane slip” releases fugitive emissions that can negate its greenhouse gas impact. Further technological development is needed to enhance LNG as a greenhouse-friendly transition fuel in shipping.

ship LNG heatmap

 Heatmap of LNG-fuelled ship positions. Source: DNV GL

Important themes for Australia

Two red spots on the above graphic represent the two dual-fuel LNG/diesel powered vessels now operating in Australia – the Siem Thiima platform support vessel services Woodside oil & gas fields on the North West Shelf, and the SeaRoad Mersey II Ro-Ro carries passengers, vehicles and freight across Bass Strait. Several vessels plying Bass Strait are due for replacement, with operators considering LNG-enabled vessels to be covered for the IMO sulphur rules coming in 2020.

Japan is the world’s biggest importer of LNG, much sourced from Australia. Woodside, Australia’s biggest LNG producer, is leading a ‘green corridor’ initiative to develop LNG as a marine fuel for iron ore carriers operating from north-west Australia to China and north Asia. The project aims to build LNG infrastructure and bunkering facilities in the Pilbara, and Woodside has partnered with key mining and shipping players to design vessels and bunkering facilities for a grand vision with a range of benefits beyond emissions reduction, including energy security, regional development and upskilling workforce capability. Yet Australia’s climate policy focus on renewable energy means there’s little government support available. The irony of Japan fuelling LNG ships coming to the Pilbara with Australia’s own gas is wasteful not just in a ‘food miles’ sense, but also the lack of value-add to our plentiful raw resources.

The ITF reports highlight the role of leading ‘green ship index’ RightShip in actions that shippers, charterers, banks and ports can take to decarbonise shipping. Their GHG Emissions Rating covers 76,000 ships, and RightShip recently announced Australia’s major ship charterer Incitec Pivot as the first customer for its new carbon neutral shipping solution built on its carbon accounting tool that measures the ship-sourced scope 3 emissions of shipping customers. While some shipping lines and freight forwarders offer a carbon offset service for containerised freight movements, the size of the environmental benefit of offsetting 73,000 tonnes of CO2e each year from 200 bulk ship charters is a game-changer for supply chain emissions reduction.

Global Shippers Forum

It’s timely also then that next week Australia hosts the world’s most senior gathering of shippers, trade logistics providers and government representatives at the Global Shippers Forum in Melbourne. There’s keen interest in the Global Reform session tackling the issue of carbon emissions in the international supply chain, touching on the work of the Global Logistics Emissions Council who’ve developed a universal method for calculating logistics emissions from road, rail, air, sea and transhipment centres to help control greenhouse gas emissions across whole logistics supply chains.

As part of the global multi-modal supply chain that will keep growing with international trade, shipping’s carbon reduction target fills another piece of the puzzle in a world now aiming for net zero emissions, and we must act now.

#GLECFramework

@smartfreightctr

Advertisements

Shipping’s Growing Carbon Gap

sinking_container_ship

On the face of it, Shipping is the most efficient of freight transport modes. Intermodal shipping containers kick-started rapid growth in trade globalisation 60 years ago, and container ships, tankers and bulk carriers have been getting bigger ever since. Carrying more freight with less fuel on a tonne-mile basis, shipping has the highest energy productivity of all transport modes.

Yet looks can be deceiving. While international shipping contributes 2.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, business-as-usual could see this explode to a whopping 18% by 2050. As trade growth increases demand, today’s fleet burns the dirtiest transport fuels, and a new report shows the market doesn’t reward ship owners who invest in the latest fuel- and carbon-efficient technologies.

When you consider the scale of the sector’s emission reductions that need to start now to contribute to the COP 21 Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C to 2°C global warming, there’s clearly an enormous decarbonisation gap that threatens to strand shipping assets in a nightmare of devaluations if potential regulatory policies come into play. Current freight flow stoppages due to Hanjin Shipping’s bankruptcy show the disruption shipping company failures can cause.

Markets don’t reward efficiency

The UCL Energy Institute report paints a sad 10-year picture of free-market myopia that finds the latest fuel efficient ships have no better market performance in terms of revenue or usage than vessels with decades-old technologies.

So why wouldn’t cheaper-to-run ships be used more than old ones? Well, today’s record-high shipping capacity drives a low freight rate market, so owners of highly efficient ships must match reduced market rates while passing on fuel savings to charterers, who get the win-win all to themselves.

OK, with fuel prices low the past few years I can understand fuel efficiency has less profile now, but back when capacity was less, charter rates higher and fuel through the roof the report shows it still didn’t seem to get much consideration from charterers. And operating speeds were found to be slower for the more efficient ships, when I would’ve thought the opposite. If fuel cost is barely being considered, maybe its significance in vessel operating cost structures isn’t as big as you’d think, especially in the charterers’ or cargo-owners’ total end-to-end cargo delivery costs.

Market inaction breeds future risks

Shipping customers doom themselves to higher costs over the long term by not incentivising efficient newbuilds and retrofits now.

Current regulation such as the Energy Efficiency Design Index will take forever to have much effect, so if the International Maritime Organisation can’t show improvement in the industry then a UN/State/regional-level carbon price may be forced upon it.

The RightShip GHG Emissions Rating system aims to fix information barriers but the information’s importance needs to influence charterers so they demand GHG ratings or validated fuel efficiency numbers from owners before contracting. Charterers and brokers need to understand the value/net benefit in whole-of-contract-life cost terms, and clearly now only Cargill, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and others who use the RightShip ratings system do.

But do these customers actually pay a premium for the good GHG Rating ships they’re using? Their market power allows them to screw rates down as well as anybody. Given GHG Rating users handle 20% of world trade, the report shows no benefit is flowing through to ship owners in better rates or utilisation, leaving little incentive for new fuel efficiency investments or substandard vessels to leave the market.

Who will lead change?

Community expectations to close the decarbonisation gap will come to bear on shipping from governments, investors and from within.

While further regulation may be justified, a mandatory efficiency standard will be difficult to apply to old vessels. Ultimately it might take a carbon price passed directly to charterers supported by voluntary Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator and Existing Vessel Design Index measures with in-service validation and benchmarking to force and help charterers change their decision-making.

Investors increasingly vote with their wallets to make boards respond to green preferences that are rationally based on financial sustainability and managing risks in a zero carbon future.

Owners of efficient ships must better promote their value proposition that reduces costs, positions for green demand and lowers regulatory risk for customers and the industry. Cargo owners, charterers, brokers, ports, banks, industry associations, suppliers and employees can all influence fuel efficiency improvements in the shipping fleet.

The oversupply of ships that helped take down industry giant Hanjin Shipping can only be fixed by scrapping old inefficient vessels, and the shipping market must take the lead now for its long term benefit.

Shell’s Geelong Refinery – Can we turn Doom & Gloom into a Clean Fuel Boom?

With Shell seeking buyers for its 59-year old refinery, deemed uncompetitive in the traditional hydrocarbons market due to its small scale and old technology relative to Asian competitors, what innovative options can Shell and the Geelong community explore to develop a sustainable asset for long term community wealth?

California provides a guide. A petroleum refinery there is being revamped as an advanced biofuel refinery, with United Airlines underwriting the investment through commercial commitment to buy its renewable jet fuel.

The lesson for Geelong is that partnerships between large fuel users, refiners and biofuel technologists offer the opportunity to use waste and non-food organics to produce low-carbon “drop-in” fuels. Feedstocks would be sourced locally. Ready-made pipeline and terminal infrastructure will efficiently get product to market. Victoria positions itself as renewable fuel hub for international and domestic airlines, land and sea transport operators, miners, farmers and industrial customers.

Sounds like win-win-win, but who can pull it together?

Carbon Neutral Transport

Australia has its first carbon neutral trucking company! Congratulations to Transforce Bulk Haulage in Dubbo who achieved this feat by saving fuel to reduce their carbon footprint then buying carbon credits to offset the remaining emissions.

So what’s stopping other transport firms from going carbon neutral?

Market Incentives & Barriers

Any emissions reductions need to be profitable to motivate action. According to Carbon War Room, heavy trucking can achieve huge emissions reductions using simple technologies with proven savings that are available today. Yet there are three formidable market barriers to get over:

  • access to capital for high upfront costs;
  • good information operators can trust;
  • principal-agent split incentive problem, where in a fragmented industry often those with incentive to save fuel don’t have the cash or the control. This can occur where prime movers and trailers have different owners, where fleets are leased, where freight companies hire sub-contractors, and where customers contract dedicated trucking services with operators paying for fuel.

Shipping also has cost-effective measures to reduce emissions available now. A DNV report points to 16 technical and 8 operational measures, as well as adopting alternative fuels such as biodiesel and LNG. Similar market barriers apply for Shipping as for Trucking. For both transport modes, shippers appear to be at the heart of environmental improvements, for freight owners are more likely to have the power as well as the appetite to pursue environmental improvements above basic regulatory compliance.

Cleaner fuels

There is no single solution to finding a cheap clean diesel alternative. Emissions regulations and oil price volatility will encourage the switch from diesel to a mix of cleaner fuels that need increasingly costly and complex equipment.

For the maritime industry the viability of LNG and biofuels has a longer time horizon than for Trucking, which has its challenges to overcome. As it is, Shipping will struggle with the low sulphur fuel mandate in 2015 due to insufficient refining capacity to make the cleaner grade. Biofuel refining capacity is far below what the shipping industry would need to make the switch.

Information Sharing

Sharing better information on fuel- and carbon-efficiency opportunities will help break down barriers, especially when this improves transparency at an organisational or even a vehicle level. Here are some current initiatives:

  • The Green Freight Europe program addresses the information barrier in Trucking through collaborative learning, reporting and comparative benchmarking
  • Carbon War Room has a shipping efficiency website which rates 60,000 existing ships on their specific fuel efficiency performance, enabling benchmarking against like vessels.
  • Three major shippers are choosing only to charter the most fuel efficient ships available in a demonstration to ship owners that the market will reward investments in sustainable fleets. Such environmental leadership is supported by a vessel fuel efficiency ratings system that uses reliable data from a respected technical specialist.

Measuring emissions to improve the bottom line, reduce risk and discover competitive advantage is a developing science. The ‘art’ of good information sharing may lie in real-time data by company – or by vessel, vehicle or aircraft – so that full supply chain awareness of Carbon Efficiency and Carbon Productivity become the mantra throughout all transport modes.

Accessing Funds to Invest

Trusting good information is important but the key to widespread adoption of fuel efficient technologies and clean fuels is funding the up-front costs.

How can we better link those with cash and the desire to save environmental resources, with those who want to save money but have little capital to invest in improvements? Carbon pricing on Transport helps the business case to finance fuel efficiency improvements, and incorporating carbon offsets helps even more, as Transforce Bulk Haulage has shown.

One maritime proposal wants a new bunker levy to contribute to an international fund so that ship emissions above set reduction targets can be offset by purchasing carbon credits. But who wants another fuel levy that may only be passed along the supply chain anyway?

New developments in California may point the way for Road Transport. Clean Mobility Centres embrace alternative fuels and enable drivers to offset the carbon emissions from their fuel purchases at the pump. Offset dollars go to the Carbon Fund Foundation to directly fund clean air projects.

What if we could offset Transport’s greenhouse gas emissions at the point of sale for all goods and services? Just like booking an airline seat where you choose to pay a little extra to offset your share of the flight’s emissions, imagine if you could offset the transport emissions of any delivery or purchase?

Imagine creating a clear transactional link between the consumer or organisation at the end of a supply chain and the transport operator needing funds to invest in fuel saving measures with economic as well as environmental benefits. It might work like this:

  • consumer chooses to offset the transport component of the emission profile of any goods purchase by paying a bit extra
  • that offset spend goes to a Transport-specific carbon finance fund
  • the fund is accessed by transport operators to finance precisely measured emission reduction projects with real financial paybacks
  • a strong transparent measurement methodology where integrity of data is key underpins emission reduction valuations for the consumer (investor) and transport operator
  • web, mobile and social media technologies enable ‘one click carbon offsetting’ as well as ‘real-time climate friendliness’ tracking of personal emissions savings to inform consumers

Yes – It’s Possible

Transport operators need better access to capital so they can make fuel- and carbon-saving investments, and operators, their customers and ultimately consumers must be able to have faith in the integrity of the emissions savings. Challenging, yes, but the unleashing of such incredible capital liquidity through ‘one click carbon offsetting at point of sale’ may generate huge Transport footprint reductions.

Look at what Transforce has achieved with its fleet of 11 trucks in regional NSW through fuel savings measures that save them money, supplemented with carbon offsets to neutralise their footprint. Yet it’s a question of immense scale to ask:

How can this approach be expanded throughout the mosaic of Australian supply chains?

Clean Transport Fuels – What are the Real Options?

Australia’s carbon price is here, so how can transport operators gain from cleaner fuels?

As a retailer, manufacturer, miner or farmer, where in your supply chain can clean fuels bring real benefits, now?

Biofuels win under Carbon Pricing

Biodiesel and ethanol now have a carbon price advantage over other transport fuels. While gaseous fuels (LNG, LPG and CNG) have lower greenhouse gas emissions than diesel and petrol, on July 1st they copped a tax “double whammy”:

  • Gas excise duty now rises each year while biofuels don’t pay excise until 2021.
  • Gaseous fuels attract a carbon price; biofuels don’t.

But costs continue to rise

Biodiesel and ethanol are made from agricultural commodities and organic waste materials. Rising demand in many industrial uses is pushing up prices of these feedstocks, and some are caught in the “Food versus Fuel” debate. The promise of offsetting society’s dependence on oil is now staged against our ability to feed growing populations. As food prices rise around the globe, economic, environmental and social trade-offs are made in a complex arena. Government support for biofuels in Europe is weakening as new laws narrow the choice of feedstocks.

Our small demand in global terms competes for inputs with big biofuel producers overseas. Australia has only a handful of biodiesel and ethanol plants, and none are world scale. Soaring Asian demand  consumes feedstocks and raises prices, challenging the viability of Aussie producers.

On a positive note, one Queensland company already produces an ultra clean synthetic diesel  and says they can do it for only 20 cents per litre.  20 cents! Is that a typo?

Biofuel blends

In practice, biofuels gain only a small carbon price advantage over other transport fuels. That’s because biodiesel and ethanol need blending with regular diesel and petrol to comply with fuel quality standards and excise rules. This reduces their carbon price advantage by 80% in the case of a B20 blend (20% biodiesel and 80% mineral diesel) down to 1.2 cents per litre. Then the logistical challenges in getting blended products to end users can pretty quickly gobble that up!

Market Reality

Market entry remains the biggest challenge of all:

  • it’s hard to supply biofuels at a competitive price due to the infrastructure and volumes needed
  • business models face rising production costs and can’t rely on government support
  • many people just don’t trust biofuels
  • lack of demand means local plants can’t expand to world-scale
  • fuel retailers need to invest in storage tanks to offer alternative fuels at the bowser

Playing with the Big Boys

Despite volatile prices, oil-based transport fuels dominate the market. Major oil companies have supply networks, production technologies and retail models they have refined for more than 100 years. While a few officially support alternative fuels, their practical steps have been tentative at best.

Getting traction

There’s no silver bullet for introducing cleaner transport fuels – a portfolio of fuels is needed. Today, both biofuels and gaseous fuels are used successfully in various light and heavy vehicle applications. Depending on a vehicle’s work task – it’s payload capacity, speed, stop-start intensity, distance range and fuel efficiency to name a few variables – each fuel has its’ “pro’s and cons”. Thorough due diligence is needed, and the clean fuels industry could better educate and communicate the sweet-spots to end users.

Meanwhile, trials of cleaner jet fuels show that biofuels can be safe, reliable and are ready for use, but would not meet immediate demand if large airlines make the switch. Yet such trials are vitally important, especially with the support of engine makers who remain critical to clean fuels take-up. Truck manufacturers like Scania run ethanol trials in their own operations to prove new clean fuel technologies.

Test & Invest

Yet even with government support, some avid users and a few keen oil companies, all clean fuels have their own market entry challenges. Carbon pricing may help some clean fuels, but it will fall short of what’s needed.

To make real progress, all supply chain partners must work together to understand which clean fuels can help their particular situation. Only through collaborative testing can the right clean fuels be chosen for each supply chain. Then clean fuel producers must make their fuels available at retail and industrial points of use – reliably and cost-effectively.

So if you want to win from cleaner fuels, you’ve got to make it happen. Get with your supply chain partners to test and invest in clean fuels now.

How can Freight Buyers minimise carbon tax in their supply chains?

Moving freight around Australia will soon attract carbon tax.  You can reduce this new cost in 2 ways:

  1. Use less fuel
  2. Use cleaner fuel

While they control fuel use, transporters need their customers’ help to manage carbon liability. Moving the discussion past who carries the carbon tax burden, the question now becomes: How can Freight Buyers minimise carbon tax in their supply chains?

Carbon Tax = More Fuel Tax

Carbon tax on Transport will be applied through the fuel tax system. Fuel tax is a consumption tax, and fuel tax credits are needed to ensure that fuel tax is not burdened on transport businesses, but rather the final consumer. This is consistent with Australia’s tax system more broadly, where consumption taxes are intended to apply to final consumption rather than business inputs.

If transporters pass on carbon tax (that is, reduced fuel tax credits), Freight Buyers wear the cost; and if carbon tax is not passed on, their transport partners may become unviable. So, as a consumption tax based on Freight Buyers’ demand for transport services, carbon pricing gives Australian shippers a clear incentive to make their supply chain buddies improve fuel efficiency and switch to cleaner fuels.

How Transporters improve Fuel Efficiency & Switch Fuels

Using Less Fuel requires efficient equipment and efficient operations. The Australian government’s Energy Efficiency Exchange reviews a wide range of fuel saving measures for rail, road and air transport. If you total the high side of the energy savings estimates, you’d think that 50% fuel savings or more are there for the taking. But it’s never that simple. The success of each measure depends on its operational setting and many only deliver long term results if adopted systematically. For instance, vehicle eco-driving improvements which promise 10% fuel savings need all drivers to have specific training in expected behaviours, backed up by regular refresher training and constant performance management to always maximise fuel savings.

When it comes to Cleaner Fuels, so-called ‘drop-in’ fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and renewable diesel are the easiest to introduce because they can use existing fuel delivery infrastructure (with some adaptations). And these Biofuels offer great opportunities for immediate reductions in carbon tax due to their zero rating for carbon emissions under the Clean Energy Future laws. Gaseous fuels like LNG and CNG, however, need capital investment in new engine technologies as well as dispensing equipment and infrastructure to create a reliable and extensive supply network.

Ultimately, Transport firms who thrive under carbon pricing will be those using a myriad of actions that lead to lower carbon and energy use.

How Freight Buyers can help

Freight Buyers across the retail, resources, construction, manufacturing, energy and agriculture sectors increasingly insist on low carbon transport. The next step is to think of carbon tax as a shared liability with joint commercial incentives to improve productivity and fuel efficiency. They can help their transport partners by measuring, co-investing and even “opting-in” to manage carbon in their supply chains:

1. Measure

At minimum, an accurate picture of baseline energy use and greenhouse gas emissions is needed. Partnerships can collect,  analyse and verify such data to develop emission reduction plans. Supply chain carbon profiling is the starting point to reduce risk and gain competitive advantage in a low carbon economy.

2. Co-invest

When Freight Buyers invest time and money in fuel use projects, more knowledge and resources can earn a bigger bang for everyone’s buck:

  • Operational changes can boost productivity dividends from investments Transporters have already made. Changing operating hours so delivery vehicles can avoid peak commuter traffic is one. Another is making greater use of High Productivity Vehicles such as B-Double trucks through local road permit applications as well as site works expanding physical access and storage capacity at load and delivery points to allow ordering in larger load sizes.
  • Commercially, Buyers can specify low emission and fuel efficient technologies in their tenders and contracts. Paying a freight price premium supported by contract commitments allows transporters to secure finance and recover the higher capital costs of advanced emissions technology. Large Freight Buyers can even boost their transport partners’ negotiating power with technology suppliers through joint procurement contracts to reduce unit prices.
  • Capital investment can overcome barriers to adopting new technology which the carbon price – by itself – is unlikely to impact. Supporting R&D trials of latest technologies in local conditions will improve joint understanding. This may require funding which shares risks and puts some ‘skin in the game’ with all stakeholders sharing the rewards. LNG and Biofuels, for example, need to be conveniently available. Large freight users could install LNG or biodiesel refuelling stations at their Distribution Centres, which are hubs for regional & interstate linehaul and urban delivery vehicles. This would complement the emerging LNG and Biofuels distributor networks to speed-up trucking industry adoption of cleaner fuels.

3. Opt-In

What if large Freight Buyers could “Opt-in” to emissions trading so they could directly manage their transport carbon liability?  Freight contracts that pass-on carbon property rights would allow Freight Buyers to manage the carbon tax liability for all the transport services they consume, opening up international linkages and domestic offsets on greater economies of scale than only the largest transport firms could contemplate. It may help achieve the economic goal of any emissions pricing regime: To achieve targeted environmental improvements at the lowest marginal cost to society.

Collaborate to Win!

Intelligence on carbon and energy use within supply chains will improve decision-making and is the first step on the path to gaining competitive advantage in a low carbon world. Shared understanding of carbon and energy reveals business opportunities and manages risks. “Without conducting the study,” says one company MD who has done just that, “I have no doubt we would have targeted projects in areas with less potential for both environmental and financial return.”

Cross functional teams of Freight Buyers, transport operators and other stakeholders can develop more powerful business cases for reducing carbon use. Such teams challenge conventional wisdom by asking:

Are we doing everything right to minimise fuel and carbon use, everyday, on every truck, train, ship and plane?

There is no silver bullet; a portfolio of initiatives is needed. It takes more work to be energy-efficient. Efficient operation requires experimentation. And many measures will only deliver consistent, long-term results if businesses adopt them systematically.

Freight Buyers who want their transport providers to do it all alone will miss out on the substantial opportunities that arise from supply chain co-operation.  In the new low carbon economy, the opportunity cost of not collaborating is competitive disadvantage. Stay tuned!