Abstract
The Arctic route has huge potential for shipping between Europe and Northeast Asia with significant savings in transit time and distance. However, GHG emissions from shipping would harm the environment of Arctic area. Potential Market Based Measures of GHG emission reduction (such as carbon tax) are under consideration but they may affect the economic viability of Northern Sea Route (NSR) for containerships. This paper investigates the economic viability of NSR against Suez Canal Route (SCR) under 2 proposed carbon tax schemes (fixed vs. progressive). Three different fuel oil types (Heavy Fuel Oil, Light Fuel Oil, Liquified Natural Gas) are used as main bunker fuel for the calculation of economic feasibility. Our result reveals that when there is no carbon tax on NSR nor SCR, or both routes are under a carbon tax scheme, no matter fixed or progressive, NSR is more economically viable, regardless of fuel type choice. When only NSR is under a carbon tax scheme, the viability depends on specific carbon tax scheme and fuel choice, but for the majority of containership sizes, NSR has lower unit cost. The result also suggests that for a given route, a progressive scheme in preferable than a fixed one and LNG would be an appealing fuel with lower unit cost.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
