Retired US admiral advises us on how world shipping should cope with the challenge of decarbonisation
 While brimming with gung-ho advice on how to achieve UN decarbonisation goals, Rear Admiral Nadeau (USCG, Retired) still acknowledges that there are substantial obstacles in the way.
Expressing confidence of victory, Adm Nadeau's article in Ventura, California's gCaptain possessed all the "we shall overcome" rhetoric typical of pre-battle inspirational speeches.
"Don’t despair," says he, "I’m an optimist and remain confident that we will all get through this. It won’t be as easy as reducing sulphur emissions and implementing IMO 2020, but we will successfully decarbonise the maritime industry."
What this confident assurance ignores is that the low sulphur fuel mandates IMO 2020 enjoyed a totally surprising last minute rescue from a sudden and unexpected plunge in world oil prices in 2014. That made the recently mandated low-sulphur fuel as cheap as standard bunker had been before. Without that windfall rescue, prosperous shipping companies would have gone out of business.
Rather like the spendthrift Mr Micawber in Dickens' classic David Copperfield, Adm Nadeau expects something like that will turn up, all the while conceding that he has nothing in mind other than doing one's best in difficult, if not impossible, circumstances given the regulatory mandates.
"Absent a miraculous breakthrough in chemistry or science, wide availability of carbon-neutral green fuels will require the wide availability of renewable energy produced from solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, or other sustainable sources," he said.
"And they won’t be cheap. In addition, enormous investments in infrastructure are needed to accommodate the transition to new fuels. A recent study from DNV estimates that in order to decarbonise shipping by 2050 more than US$100 billion may need to be invested in vessels and onshore infrastructure annually. Depending on the fuel pathway chosen, the total CAPEX could be over $2 trillion."
What is often overlooked or understated, is the ability to safely handle some of these fuels on ships and in ports remains an area of great concern. "The pace of action may remain slower than most would like, and progress will probably be difficult," said Adm Nadeau.
"IMO will continue to work on its agenda. Any changes or revisions will likely be aimed at accelerating decarbonisation while also ensuring it is a ‘fair and just’ transition that does not have ‘disproportionately negative impacts’ on the least-developed countries and small island developing states. Stakeholders remain committed and the demand for decarbonisation will only intensify," he said.
This is said so blithely. Like so many things in the American milieu, money is seldom a problem.
Finding a fair and just solution for the third world, according to the decarbing establishment is to be figured out later. Which usually means not at all. What it will likely amount to is an exemption from the mandates and restrictions. That is to say, that one you will allow the poor people of the world, who will then produce a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emissions, to continue to do so with impunity.
What is forgotten here is that the rich people, the Europeans who were buying cut flowers from East African will no longer be able to buy such trivial items in quantities that justifies the existence of this new found industry, having had their standards of living slashed in line with environmentalist desires that mankind likes a more close to the earth authentic life style. What seems to be forgotten here is that if society is not rising in affluence, it is sinking is into poverty. There is no steady state existence however much socialists wish it were so.
As was recently announced by the US State Department, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and Housing and Urban Development Department will release a “transportation sector decarbonisation blueprint” in early 2023 and then develop a “US maritime decarbonisation strategy” for the domestic maritime sector.
"However, we don’t yet know what this plan will contain or look like," said Adm Nadeau.
Global factors impacting the transition will change, but it is difficult to predict, he says. "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the seismic shift in the energy markets and trading patterns demonstrate that we can’t rule out ‘black swan’ events, our assumptions are not always right, and our best plans could be derailed overnight.
"We don’t know what will result from IMO’s efforts to revise the ambitions and strategy, develops mid and long-term measures, and incorporates the life cycle assessment and “well to wake” impacts of alternative fuels.
"We don’t know the timeline for achieving consensus and implementing any new mandatory requirements.
We don’t know what impact global inflation and other contemporary events may have on decarbonisation of the maritime sector.
"Lastly, we don’t know when renewable carbon-neutral fuels will be readily, reliably and globally available for all commercial vessels," said Adm Nadeau.
What should vessel owners, operators, charterers, and other industry stakeholders do now?
Said Adm Nadeau: "Focus on efficiency. Better efficiency will lower the energy intensity of vessel operations regardless of what fuel is used." One can hardly fault that piece of advice.
As for the rest of it, some is questionable. "Get involved," he said "Engage others like never before. Watching from the sidelines is not a good option. We all need to be in the game and doing our part."
But do we? Do we need to join the herd in this children's crusade led by the likes of Greta Thunberg? Wouldn't look before you leap, be better advice?
"Collaborate," he says. "Collaborate across the entire value chain and ecosystem of energy providers, fuel producers, bunker suppliers, ports, engine and fuel system manufacturers, vessel designers, shipyards, shippers, banks & financing, labour and seafarers, P&I clubs, regulators, and other stakeholder groups. Create and sustain an open, transparent dialogue that seeks to identify areas of mutual interest and benefit."
And finally, he advises all to "develop a personalised compliance strategy. Understand your risk profile, your threats, and your opportunities.
"Consult and connect with outside experts. The challenge of decarbonisation deserves the best possible analysis, planning, and preparation," he advises.
What Adm Nadeau ignores and is perhaps unaware of is the key religious belief in shipping, that is to reduce costs where ever possible. His advice is to spend as if there was no tomorrow. Also, that regulators restrict freedom of choice, and add to costs whenever they intrude. So while they are undoubtedly a necessary evil, these regulators are an evil to be resisted and shunned if legally possible.
With the advent of the current carbon craze, its popular support is entirely from the MAB, the media, academic bureaucratic complex. Major players appear to see regulations as a way to increase market share knowing that smaller companies can be put out of business of they fail to meet escalating environmental compliance costs.
Whatever its intrinsic merits as an existential threat, global warming is not scarifying enough to bother the public despite the antics of a few vociferous university hysterics. It is a cause beloved by the bureaucracy as a means to tax and spend and by doing so enhance its own power and undermine the freedom of the seas. It is not a good thing and is to be resisted where possible. |
