URSABLOG: Respect For The Sea

I’m cross. I have been for a few days, and I can’t seem to get rid of the feeling of irritation that wells up inside me every time I think of the really stupid thing that she said. And the only way I can get it out of my system is to write about it. In doing so I will probably reveal my own ignorance and prejudices, but why shouldn’t I? If other people can do it, why can’t I?

The source of the irritation is something fairly innocuous, an article in the Financial Times titled UN shipping rules targeting carbon emissions provoke storm of criticism. I don’t blame the FT, but whenever it talks about shipping, Maersk Line seems to be the go-to source, and container shipping is the only shipping it can talk about, unless it’s about ‘supertankers’ (dread phrase) and the oil market. Occasionally the old canard of the BDI being a lead indicator for global economic growth makes an appearance too. But this is to be expected: shipping is small but essential part of the world’s financial system, the facilitator of trade, the almost invisible link that binds the globe together, the enabler of growth: economic, social and, yes emissions.

I am teaching a course in The Economics of Sea Transport at the Greek branch of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers at the moment, and it is a course that gives me great pleasure. After going through the rather clunky basics of the factors of production (where does land fit in?), supply and demand, elasticity, and so on, we look in some depth at the different markets, dry bulk, tankers and liner trades. On Thursday it was tankers, and the environment featured heavily. My students – naturally concerned about the environment – were asking about the future of greener ships, and the opportunities. One of them wanted to be a shipbroker for electric powered ships, and seemed rather deflated when I pointed out that there wasn’t a freight market for them yet. Better to try LNG carriers: a (little) bit greener, and certainly in demand. The money – for now at least – is good too. What struck me in the discussions was that yes, they wanted a better future but were not really aware of what the present really looks like.

The FT seems to be in the same position. Yes, shipping is responsible for 2-3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and yes international shipping is regulated by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and yes, there are targets to reduce these emissions, some of them about to be implemented. And yes, of course there are a whole bunch of people ready to criticise these regulations. And the article does some justice to all sides, despite leaning heavily on on container shipping. But it was one particular passage that evoked my ire:

… Tristan Smith, a shipping researcher at UCL, argued that parts of the private sector also lobbied for more flexible rules and exemptions, including for ships facing bad weather…

Aoife O’Leary, chief executive of campaign group Opportunity Green, said the industry was “basically saying [there should be exemptions] if there are storms at sea. All I could do is laugh.”

Laugh? Really?

Most of the time spent between reading her frankly offensive words and writing this, I have been trying not to fall into what I call the ‘Greta trap’, after Greta Thunberg, and the reactions she provoked, mostly from – how can I say this – reactionary men of a certain age (my age), who responded with fury against this slip of a girl who challenged the world she had grown up in, and asked for change. I think that there was more than a measure of misogynism in the mix, one that I will try and avoid. But Ms O’Leary’s comment warrants a reply because this is anything but a laughing matter. It is a matter of life and death for the men and women who work on ships.

Opportunity Green appears to be an honourable organisation. Its website says:

Climate change is terrifying. But if the global community acts now, the solutions that reduce emissions also bring enormous opportunities for economic development, improved health and increased democracy. At Opportunity Green we help countries, civil society and business access those opportunities.?

However, I have had some difficulty in finding exactly how they do this, except by publishing various reports. In my view, middle aged white man that I am, lobbing a few well written grenades into the media repeating stuff that we already know is not really helping anyone. The reports are mostly in response to legislation, which seems to be Opportunity Green’s forte as they have a primarily legal background. In fact, this seems to be where they want to do their real work:

At Opportunity Green we believe lawyers are obligated to analyse the existing legal systems and regulations to stop climate change. We use legal innovation to forge new pathways on climate action or where that is not possible, find pathways within the present legal structure to facilitate the legislation needed to slash carbon pollution.

Their emphases.

I do not doubt Ms O’Leary’s passion, intelligence or eloquence. She has a good ear for a soundbite too. But from what I can find, the one place where she lacks knowledge is of shipping and the sea. I assume that this is the case, otherwise she would not have made such an offensive remark, maybe taken out of context, but sufficiently proud of to publish it on Opportunity Green’s website.

I am a sale and purchase shipbroker, at the sharp end of a capitalist industry, living in the world of (almost) perfect competition, dealing with assets worth millions of dollars. Despite my work in education, and that I am obligated to try and work through the issues that bother me ?through my own reading and writing, I appreciate that I am hardly going to be considered a poster boy for progressive change. The prejudices of those who do not work in the market mean that I will always be speaking from the dark side. That does not mean I have to nurture any pre-conceived ideas I have of NGOs, and others, who want to see change. I just want to mention, as the saying goes, a couple of inconvenient truths.

Firstly, shipping, economically, is driven my derived demand: ships would not exist without the demand for the stuff that they carry. A brief look at the cargoes that they do carry – crude oil, and its products, coal, iron ore, finished goods, cement, cars - would show that the emissions that they are importing and exporting are huge in comparison to the emissions of shipping itself, the most environmentally friendly form of transport per tonne of cargo over distance. This is not to say that shipping should not improve, and I expect it will do so, once the technology and the ships using it exist.

Secondly: yes, there are storms at sea. And yes, in a storm you need more power when they occur. I remember listening with horror to a friend of mine, a shipowner and former captain, telling me his own Typhoon story. He was in command of a ship with a deck cargo of huge (and expensive) robots for an assembly line in a factory, loaded in Germany and bound for Asia.

The ship was high in the water (the only cargo was on deck) as it entered the Bay of Biscay, and encountered a five-day storm, and was making little headway in a beam sea, rolling heavily, when the lashings broke from some of the robots, destablising the ship. One after the other the generators lost power, and then finally the main engine, leaving only the emergency generator working. In an Atlantic storm, all my friend could do was try and keep the ship – without power – facing the wind and the waves, which is not easy in the famously confused and vicious seas of the Bay of Biscay. He was lucky. He was far enough from the coast to not drift shorewards, and run aground, and didn’t meet any other ships in this hell of a cauldron. He was unlucky. He was blamed by shore-based interests for the loss and damage of the cargo and was dragged through a lot of legal trouble. However it was his seamanship saved the vessel and the crew which under SOLAS and INCLOS was his primary responsibility. My emphasis. And for which he was never thanked, except by the owners, and his crew and their families.

I appreciate the need of pressure groups to do their stuff. Unregulated industry, even the shipping industry, is a disaster and will cause a colossal market failure. Climate change, it can be argued, is the biggest market failure of all time. NGOs are needed. Legislation is needed, markets cannot work otherwise. But don’t laugh at the experience and knowledge of seafarers and shipowners when they say there are times when they need to increase power (and emissions) in order to face the perils of the sea. Charterers do that already, and there is enough work for lawyers in those disputes (and enough case law) to keep them busy. Nonetheless shipowners have yet to give up the fight to protect their ships and their crews.

In all these discussions, more respect is needed. Respect to understand the opposing point of view and learn about them more. Respect to consider their opinion and not laugh at it, dismissing it outright. Respect for the environment. Respect for the world as it works. Respect for the people that work in it, right now, in a challenging and claustrophobic environment for months at a time, away from friends and family. Respect for business and the markets. And above all, as any seafarer will tell you, respect for the sea. It is a dangerous place. The IMO has done excellent work in the past to protect lives at sea and the marine environment. That work continues. Don’t laugh at it. Respect it whilst you are changing it. You may even find your own opinions and proposals will be considered more favourably in the process.?

Simon Ward

www.ursashipbrokers.gr