Fighting back: Is it not time to question questionable claims that require shipping to bow to eco- alarmists?
 Bjorn Lomborg, the famous Danish skeptical environmentalist, whose reasoning on global warming seems reasonable, is denied the slightest hearing, much less serious consideration, at high-level scientific and inter-governmental conferences.
Given the issue's importance to shipping and Mr Lomborg's attachment to rationality, it is surprising lobbies such as the World Shipping Council, BIMCO, Intertanko and the like, do not defend themselves and their industries by deploying his sound arguments.
But instead of demanding evidence to support alarmists' claims of dire consequences we supposedly face without decarbonisation, these industry associations appear to bow down to their tormentors who wish them nothing but harm and seek to have them and their industries under their thumbs.
Just the title of Mr Lomborg's book might well be the industry's call to arms: "False Alarm - How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor and Fails to Fix the Planet."
Mr Lomberg admits global warming is a problem. He agrees that most of the rise in temperature in due to human activity. But at this point, he stops. Yes, it is a problem, but how much of a problem? Let's have some rational risk assessment.
Googling for a summary of harm done by global warming, one eventually - and with difficulty - finds: "More frequent and intense drought, storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and warming oceans can directly harm animals, destroy the places they live, and wreak havoc on people's livelihoods and communities. As climate change worsens, dangerous weather events are becoming more frequent or severe."
First, much of that has been debunked - droughts, storms and heat waves - and what hasn't, has been stripped of its scarifying menace by the slightest of cursory examinations. But rather than investigate these claims, there is a mad rush to endorse the views of childish hysterics like Greta Thunberg and her Children's Crusade. Now that the Biden administration expects to spend US$50 billion a year on climate change mitigation, one can be assured that much of that will go to funding the activities of the denizens of the left-leaning media academic bureaucratic complex.
While condemning such a course as foolish, Mr Lomberg points to the most effective way to decarbonise by pointing to Covid-19 lockdowns and recessions. However, ill-conceived these courses are, he had had to admit that they get the job done for those who want it done at any price.
All this despite the fact that opinion poll after opinion poll concludes that the general public ranks global warming as one of its least concerns. It is the cause of young cause-niks and bureaucrats, those who live in houses with facilities to power up hugely expensive electric cars overnight and have another car if they want to drive long distance.
But lockdowns, curfews and economic downturns fit into the scheme of things for green new dealers, who feel that living the green new life must hurt - so hang the expense and supply chains be damned.
So who cares if the cost of shipping a container of goods has increased by up to 547 per cent more than the seasonal average over the last five years.
ManSys, experts in business management solutions for international trade, commissioned research into the average cost of shipping a TEU container of goods from Shanghai to several major European ports.
Shanghai is the busiest port globally, processing 43.3 million TEU a year. Researchers investigated the expense of importing a container, to reveal how the cost of containerised freight has increased recently.
In the United Kingdom, shipping costs are at an all-time high. While some mainland European ports see slightly lower shipping costs, increases in the cost of importing from Shanghai are universal across Europe.
The cost of shipping a TEU container to Europe from Shanghai ranges from GBP5,736 (US$7,855) to GBP9,112. However, the cost of shipping a TEU container back to Shanghai from Europe is significantly lower, averaging between GBP805 to GBP1,117. This is a symptom of the reduced supply of containers in China, which drives up the cost of securing one.
Between 2016 and 2020, the average cost of containerised freight stayed consistent, slowly increasing year on year. However, the average cost of shipping a TEU container from Shanghai rocketed this year, with freight prices jumping from an average of GBP855 in 2020 to GBP2,492 across 2021.
Since the Covid scare hit, there has been a strain on supply chains. Initial economic uncertainty and localised lockdowns led to reduced consumer demand for many goods. But when restrictions began to ease and governments encouraged economic recovery, consumer savings over lockdowns were rapidly spent on goods that are things rather than services.
London's Drewry Maritime Research is non-political and takes a gloomy view, wondering is the whole globalisation game is over.
The current container crisis questions the enduring validity of globalisation and low-freight cost assumptions, say Drewry analysts.
“Ocean carriers alone cannot remediate the current problems in the short term, and shippers will have to adapt their medium-term strategies. More than 80 per cent of shippers reported serious issues with lack of shipping capacity, poor schedule reliability, and high freight rates.
Even a true believer like Steven Lua, CEO of clean energy solutions provider Unitrove, sees problems ahead with government’s failing to appreciate that the gap that exists between its stated goals of zero carbon emissions and ambient reality.
“If we don’t get the infrastructure in place by the mid-2030s, I think we’re going to get very stuck.” said Mr Lua.
"If we talk just purely of the maritime, there’s a lot of focus, at least from the government, on purely the vessel side and the idea that we’re going to be building the next generation of clean ships and a lot of the financing has gone towards that.
"There’s not been as much drive around or thinking about the infrastructure side, how are we going to be able to fuel these vessels. If we don’t get the infrastructure in place by the mid-2030s, we’re getting very stuck.
"The maritime sector is on the bottom of the rung in terms of the transport decarbonisation. Most of the time people have the narrative with cars, trains, and planes and these are all in the public eye, whereas shipping is not. I think for that reason as well, it’s not necessarily a vote winner," he said.
"The government then focuses on things that seem to be the vote winner type of issues and maybe making announcements such as: “We’re going to invest in the new generation of autonomous clean ships” and “We’re going to create new jobs and bring shipbuilding back to the UK.” That’s a narrative that fits quite well with the agenda but to say: “We’re going to roll out zero emission infrastructure” that doesn’t quite have the same sort of vote-getting soundbites to it."
Perhaps what Mr Luais missing is that his is the cause of the bureaucrats and the affluent leftist elite, adherents to the doctrine of the views of the media- academic bureaucratic complex.
What political risk exists, emanates from imposing suffering on the public, who do not mind climate change mitigation if it doesn't hurt. But the moment it does, politicians will likely be opposed to the bureaucrats and once again side with the people who care little about global warming and do so largely to be agreeable with those vociferous souls who care more than they do. |
