1. Introduction
Carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH
4), nitrous oxide (N
2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF
6), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main compounds of greenhouse gases (GHGs1‘) [
1,
2]. It is generally accepted that CO
2 can affect the climate for at least a hundred years. Some even considers that the burning of fossil fuels is the main source of CO
2 emissions in the atmosphere [
1], and that its effects on the climate can last for hundreds or thousands of years [
3,
4]. Therefore, reducing CO
2 emissions is currently the most direct and feasible way to mitigate future climate change [
5]. About 20% of total CO
2 emissions come from transport [
2]. According to the estimate of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the GHG produced by shipping accounts for about 2.5% of the total global GHG, of which CO
2 is the main component. CO
2 emissions account for about 96% [
6,
7] of the total GHG emissions from shipping and are equivalent to 3% of total CO
2 emissions worldwide [
8]. The CO
2 produced by international merchant ships accounts for about 85% of the total CO
2 emissions from shipping [
9]. Therefore, how to effectively reduce the carbon emissions of ships has become an important task for the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In 2018, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO adopted the Initial IMO Strategy on the Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, thereby formally committing the shipping industry to the global climate plan and pushing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping as soon as possible. Its specific objectives [
10] include the following:
reducing the carbon intensity of shipping by at least 40% from 2008 levels by 2030;
cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of 2008 levels and cutting the carbon intensity by at least 70% of 2008 levels by 2050.
This initial strategy established the vision for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from ships and has become the guiding principle and framework for such reductions [
11]. In order to effectively achieve the emission reduction target, the IMO has actively researched feasible near-term (2018–2023), medium-term (2023–2030) and long-term (after 2030) carbon reduction plans. The carbon intensity indicator (CII) of the rating system for the energy efficiency existing ship index (EEXI)
, which was adopted in 2021, came into effect in 2023. It focuses on the following items [
12,
13,
14,
15]:
CII refers to the weight of CO2 emitted per ton of cargo per nautical mile transported by a ship during the year of operation. It is expressed in g/ton·nm, with “nm” standing for nautical mile.
It is applicable to ships with a gross tonnage of 5000 tons or more.
It rates ships from A to E in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of their annual fuel consumption. A is superior, B is minor superior, C is moderate, D is minor inferior, and E is inferior.
To obtain the CII rating of a ship, its required CII value in 2019 must be calculated first in accordance with the IMO formula and used as the CII reference line for defining each rating scale [
15].
In accordance with the IMO formula, the annual attained CII value can be calculated according to the fuel consumption of the ship. The actual rating of the ship can be known according to the rating range in which the attained CII is calculated.
However, the above CII reference lines are not fixed and must decrease year by year in accordance with IMO rules [
15]; that is to say, the boundaries of each rating will also decrease year by year. As a result, even under the same fuel consumption, a ship may get a lower rating in future years.
Under IMO’s energy efficiency existing ship
index (EEXI) and CII systems, ships must use energy-saving technologies throughout their service lives [
16]. For ships using traditional marine diesel, how to improve fuel burning efficiency and reduce carbon emissions is a major challenge. However, many studies have found that engine power saving can have a significant effect on emission reduction [
17,
18]. The IMO’s energy-saving framework is expected to have a significant impact on shipping patterns [
16]. Therefore, the shipping industry is developing innovative energy-saving technologies such as organic Rankine cycle (ORC) [
19,
20], steam turbines, heat pumps, and heat recovery [
20,
21], where ORC and dual-pressure steam systems have been proven to be the most beneficial technologies for improving energy efficiency [
19,
20]. It has also been observed that some wind rotors and sails are installed on the deck to generate additional thrust to achieve energy-saving purposes [
22]. In order to obtain a better CII rating, ship owners must try to improve their operational efficiency and reduce carbon emissions of their ships as much as possible. According to the estimates by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the global capacity of dry bulkers in 2022 was estimated to be 946,135 kilotons. About 36% of these ships were given a rating D or E [
23]. For ships that have been rated D for three consecutive years or E for a single year, the owners must draw up corrective action plans and make improvements [
15]. If they fail to improve, they may be subjected to a corresponding record of deficiency, or be detained during port state control inspections. The CII rating may also affect a ship’s insurance coverage. In addition, it is also related to the responsibility scope of the charterer, as ships with poor CII ratings may not be favored by charterers. As a result, it may lead to the low operating efficiency of ships and a gradual loss of competitiveness [
24]. In order to effectively reduce the carbon emissions of existing ships and improve the CII rating, shipping companies may use all possible methods to obtain the best fuel consumption efficiency, including using alternative low-carbon or zero-carbon fuels [
23,
24,
25], slow steaming, and optimizing the operation mode [
21], e.g., using alternative routes or the great circle route to shorten the voyage, so as to reduce the attained CII value and achieve a better CII rating.
According to the regulations of MARPOL, the ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) is a specific system used to supervise the fuel efficiency of ships [
26], which has been incorporated into the ship’s international safety management system. Although the effect of EEXI on energy saving is not satisfactory [
27,
28], ships often use the following practices to improve ship fuel efficiency:
Changing ship operation details: cleaning the hull to reduce resistance, installing low-energy bulbs, installing solar/wind auxiliary power supplies to provide electricity for cabins, and using shore power for ships in ports, etc. [
10,
20].
Replacing ships: when shipping companies compete to build large ships in order to reduce transportation unit costs [
29], they also consider how to improve fuel efficiency, especially the optimization of hull design, propeller pitch, and engine speed, as well as the application of energy-saving equipment to improve performance [
26,
30,
31,
32].
Using alternative fuels: when the provisions of the MARPOL Convention on the sulfur content of fuel oil came into force, more and more ships used alternative fuels [
33] such as LNG and methanol [
28,
34,
35,
36].
Limiting engine power: according to IMO’s guidelines for the development of a ship energy efficiency management plan [
37], speed optimization is a promising method to improve ship energy efficiency. Therefore, many existing ships adopt the engine power limitation (EPL) strategy to reduce the actual operating speed of the ships [
17,
18].
If slow steaming is adopted, although it can effectively save fuel consumption, it may increase the number of sailing days, which could have a significant negative impact on overall operating costs and capacity benefits. The Northeast Passage is a route connecting northeast Asia with northern Europe, starting with the Bering Strait in the east and ending with the Kola Peninsula in the west [
38,
39], as shown in
Figure 1. In recent years, ships have used two main routes. Taking westward sailing as an example, after passing through the Vilkitskil Strait, ships can go directly west through the northern part of the Kara Sea and the central part of the Barents Sea. Alternatively, they can sail through the Kara Gates Strait and then to the western part of the Barents Sea. The reverse is also true for ships heading east. Historically, Russia has claimed sovereignty over the Northeast Passage and used it as a national transportation artery [
40]. In recent years, because of its shorter distance, it has even been deliberately positioned as an alternative to the Suez Canal (also known as the Suez Route) [
41]. However, the Northeast Passage is covered by sea ice all year round. This situation has attracted considerable concern from shipping companies, as sea ice can hamper navigation in the Northeast Passage. Since 1979, the ice sheet in September has decreased by about 13% every decade [
42,
43], as shown in
Figure 2. The emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbides, etc. from ships are direct or indirect greenhouse gases, which would exacerbate global warming and even lead to the melting of ice in the Arctic. There are relevant mandatory regulations in MARPOL [
44] to limit the emissions from vessels. The black carbon emitted by ships powered by fossil fuels is insoluble in water and has a strong capability to absorb solar radiation [
45]. It would accelerate global warming extent and speed up ice melting in the Arctic [
46,
47]. In addition, low-sulfur heavy fuel oil used by ships, which contains a large amount of aromatic compounds, would increase the black carbon emissions and, thus, expedite melting of the Arctic ice [
48]. The Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis predicted in 2015 that the Northeast Passage will be ice-free by 2030 [
49]. Observations over the past decade have shown that the Barents Sea is the westernmost point of the Northeast Passage. In recent years, its ice sheet has greatly decreased, and it has come up obviously with “Atlantification”, with almost no ice even in winter [
50]. In addition, according to records of Russia’s Northern Sea Route Administration, ships sail through the Northeast Passage each day from early January to mid-November. At its peak, there are 109 ships a day [
51]. At the very least, such melting ice suggests that the Northeast Passage has become the Europe–Asia route of choice. For many years, ships sailing between Europe and Asia have taken the Suez Route. However, in recent years, melting ice has allowed the Northeast Passage to become an alternative route for ships. Compared with the Suez Route, the Northeast Passage could save up to 40% of the journey [
52,
53,
54]. Under the CII rating system, it may be possible to use this advantage to balance the negative impact of increased sailing days as a result of ships sailing at reduced speeds. Therefore, the Northeast Passage may attract high interest from shipping companies. In other words, the IMO’s CII rating system may indirectly drive the future development of the Northeast Passage.
In this paper, Vessel Y, a dry bulk carrier belonging to Shipping Company C, was taken as the research object. According to the fuel consumption data corresponding to the maximum continuous rating (MCR), the revolutions per minute (RPM) of the main engine, and the ship speed, the formula prescribed by the IMO was adopted in this paper to calculate the required CII, attained CII, and CII ratings, for further analysis:
Through analyzing the attained CII values of Vessel Y at different sailing speeds, the factors affecting the CII rating of the ship could be clarified.
This paper analyzed the adverse effects of sailing at reduced speeds to achieve better CII ratings on the Eurasian route.
The benefits of the Northeast Passage to Eurasian routes under the CII rating framework were also analyzed.
In addition, the likely development of the Northeast Passage under the CII rating framework was forecasted.
On the basis of the analysis results, the impact of the IMO’s CII rating system on the future development of the Northeast Passage was evaluated.