What now, coach???

A new report found that more than 75% of ships will not meet the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) new Environmental social and corporate governance (ESG) index aimed at decarbonizing the industry. This means that many ship owners will be forced to slow ships down to reduce emissions but doing so could deepen the global food and energy crisis by reducing available ship capacity.

Full article, HERE from Watt’s Up with That website.

When you add this to the finance world’s Poseidon Principles actions/accountability, and the costs variable of $200M to $600M per ship and and average of three years to complete one, this will be interesting in light of the fact that there are approximately 44,000 total cargo ships in the world.

If 75% fail this new requirement, that means that roughly 33,000 don’t meet the new standards.

Now, they can slow down, which reduces emissions… But that costs money and slows delivery. What happens if it’s food stuffs like bananas? Will they be ripe by the time they hit the pier?

If they slow down by 10%, that adds roughly 2 days to a China to LA cruise. Over a year, that would ‘cost’ one round trip per year, and around $3,000,000 in extra operating costs for a 4000 TEU ship.

The main ship manufacturer is China, which basically ‘self funds’ the ships, and figure the odds of them actually ‘obeying’ the letter of this new requirement.

This could just flat get ugly… As if we don’t already have enough problems with the supply chain.




Sigh… — 17 Comments

  1. Blood boiling.
    I have a visceral reaction to this.
    Maybe I’ll go to the range.
    Our government has been hijacked by an international cartel of criminals.

  2. The PLAN is being executed! Get rid of a lot of those “useless eaters” and place the majority of the rest back into their rightful place obeying and serving their betters. /sarcasm

  3. Interesting that the number of ships lends itself so easily to doing the math. I see the stealthy hand of our alien overlords attempting to make our lives easier.

  4. If you had a plan to reduce the world’s population drasticly what would you do differently? Too many things over the last couple of years are lineing up for me to believe that what’s going on is a coincidence. Back in my uni days 2001-3 I kept asking the greeny lovers how they planned to reduce the population to below a billion without genocide. I never got a straight answer.

    • If I was planning that, I would..
      (A) Prioritise the emissions that matter, not engage in futile and expensive gestures.
      (B) Avoid doing things that are so obviously going to have such negative economic consequences that we can no longer afford the changes that we want, or research into the changes and adaptations that we need to make.
      (C) Consider very carefully how politically impossible it will be to maintain this strategy when the population works out that food on the table NOW is more important than theoretical warming somewhere off in the never-never.
      (D) Understand that an impoverished country is a powerless one, with the ability to neither persuade others, or defend yourself from them.

      There are no magic solutions, only tradeoffs. Wisdom is finding the tradeoff that produces the best results for the least cost.

  5. Or… they could simply ignore the guidelines. Pencil-whip the forms, and make sure any bureaucrats are encouraged to turn a blind eye.

    I have no doubt better-connected shippers will do just that.

    • Agree!
      Money talks, bull shit walks, sails, floats, what ever.

    • Ships are tracked by satellite, and sailing and arrival times are easy to determine, so speed would be obvious. Might not be so easy to pencil whip or bribe to cover up.

  6. All- In any case, it’s going to be interesting… And will disappear from the news in about 3.2 microseconds…

  7. I have figured out what is going on. There is a group of international elites who have already established a colony on a far off planet without our knowledge. They haven’t been successful so far in getting us lowlife to blow ourselves to smithereens, leaving this a planet largely unoccupied but still rich in all else. This will become their playground and source of necessities as they live in their far off colony. They simply must destroy us, or have us destroy ourselves.

    Yeah, I know. But it seems to make as much sense as the whole conglomeration of other crap put together.

  8. With how little ‘Carbon’ is a pollutant (ie not at all) this is obviously being done to promote famine and shortages.

    Sadly there are too many who are too stupid to see that.

    • The alternative is that it is being done by an insecure elite whose strategy is to gain power by frightening the proles.

      Look at the major demographics voting for it.
      They are either pensioners of, or employees of Government, or members of the affluent professions. In both cases, they see themselves as insulated from the economic consequences of these policies, and have little understanding of what it takes to grow food and get it from paddock to plate.

  9. I’m 100% with Ed on this.

    But here’s the thing, postmodernist narrativity is doomed to flounder on the rocks of reality — making sh*t up only goes so far and then, oh dear, no more food.

    Engineered or just plain stoopid/corrupt? Both, imo.

  10. Who enforces this? Doesn’t each country have to decide how much, if any, to enforce in their jurisdiction?

    As far as the question above, transponders do get turned off, renamed, and otherwise jiggered with, so they aren’t a reliable record.

  11. I knew them oil fired boilers weren’t going to work. The Age Of Sail will make a comeback, or they all go nuclear. I don’t see a 3rd way.