Following on the heels of a positive view of the future of shipping comes a negative view of the current state of shipping. From The Independent:
Global shipping companies have spent billions fitting vessels with “cheat devices” that will allow them to pollute water while still satisfying new emissions legislation, environmental groups have warned.
More than $12bn (£9.7bn) has been spent on the devices, known as open-loop scrubbers, which extract sulphur from the exhaust fumes of ships that run on heavy fuel oil.
This means the vessels meet standards demanded by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) that kick in on 1 January.
The sulphur emitted by the ships is processed by the scrubber, which in turn discharges as a liquid which contains pollutant properties which have been found to pose a risk to sea life. …
A total of 3,756 ships, both in operation and under order, have already had scrubbers installed according to DNV GL, the world’s largest ship classification company.
Only 65 of these vessels have had closed-loop scrubbers installed only, a version of the device that does not discharge into the sea and stores the extracted sulphur in tanks before discharging it at a safe disposal facility in a port.
“Cheat devices” is a loaded phrase when it comes to contraptions which satisfy a quasi-legal requirement, isn’t it? So I’m irritated; the fault clearly lies with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the issuer of the standard. The standard rebuttal is that it’s the responsibility of the shippers to meet the standards, not to save the world; that’s the responsibility of the IMO, or even further up the chain, say, to the United Nations.
Wärtsilä Closed Loop Scrubber.
This tiresomely familiar argument ignores the simple fact that shippers, or their proxies, undoubtedly influenced the negotiations. As interested parties, or stakeholders in the current vernacular, they can legitimately argue – at least in most folks’ views – that they deserve a place at the table[1].
However, this stakeholder argument ignores a simple fact about the shipping industry. In order to abstract this to more situations, let’s define concerned commercial entities (CCEs) as organizations whose primary purpose is to provide some product or service to a market in hopes of gaining a monetary profit. By both default and by societal design, they do not generally concern themselves with the impact, societal or environmental, of their service or product, although of course there may be exceptions. Such concerns usually run counter to their goals and methods, and thus get short shrift in the world of human desires.
When a CCE either overtly or covertly attempts to influence the formation of legislation meant to regulate them and improve the world[2], it therefore does not share the goal of the legislation, and I have to wonder if the stakeholder argument really holds water. Unfortunately for me (but perhaps fortunately for a young political science or sociology researcher), that’d be the subject of a research paper, and I’m not in a position to be aware of any such research.
Another point illustrating the short-sighted nature of CCEs is this:
The ICCT [International Council on Clean Transportation] has estimated that cruise ships with scrubbers will consume around 4 million tons of heavy fuel oil in 2020 and will discharge 180 million tons of contaminated scrubber washwater overboard.
“About half of the world’s roughly 500 cruise ships have or will soon have scrubbers installed,” said Mr Comer. “Cruise ships operate in some of the most beautiful and pristine areas on the planet, making this all the more concerning.”
Assuming the article refers to the polluting open-loop scrubbers, I have to wonder at the quality of the cruise liners’ owners’ thought processes. They’re basically pissing in their very own product. Who wants to go on cruises in disasterized waters[3]? Yet, here they are installing devices which will ultimately destroy one of the things they’re selling.
Perhaps they all worried that, if they installed the closed-loop scrubbers, they’d be disadvantaged by the cost. Perhaps they should have banded together and agreed that all would install them, and thus save the commons which they exploit. I wish I knew if that idea ever came up, and what really shot it down.
1 In the general case, there are cases of covert proxy organizations being created by industries purely to influence legislation to the advantage of industry, without regard to the greater goals which the legislation was originated to accomplish. They often masquerade as “citizen organizations” representing popular opinion, when they are, in fact, no such thing. This is a tactic borrowed from politics; no particular brand of politics is implied, as tactics are rarely, if ever, restricted to any particular political stripe.
2 Pomposity at its worst, yet I could not find a better descriptor.
3 Yes, yes, I know there is such a thing as Disaster Tourists. Work with me here, people!
