I just want to comment to say please keep posting these articles on Substack. I would like to find time to read WIP much more often, but it slips my mind. If it’s right there in the Substack app I can get it where I go to read articles anyway. Thanks.
The illustration of the massive progress in cruise ships indeed evokes a sense of unbounded optimism. This trend is also evident in the evolution of modern cargo ships, which have grown significantly in size and capacity.
However, all good times may come to an end. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recently announced ambitious and, in my view, unrealistic decarbonization targets. The entire shipping industry is required to cut emissions by 30% by 2030, 70% by 2040, and achieve net-zero by 2050. Non-compliance with these targets will result in substantial penalties: a $100 per tonne CO2 tax for slight non-compliance and a $380 per tonne tax for significant non-compliance.
These targets seem overly stringent and impractical. I had not anticipated such aggressive measures from the IMO, which has historically maintained a relatively laissez-faire approach. For context, the EU economy is already struggling with a carbon price of $60-70 per tonne. The IMO's new regulations could either force a reconsideration of these targets or risk disrupting the global trading order.
I would like to protest, after reading the same argument over and over. It's not that we (here in Austria) have less regulation. I don't know anything about the details, but projects have to go through years of environmental impact studies, neighbourhood and technical review processes, etc. Often a decade or more. There are EU mandates that require enormously complicated and lengthy bidding processes so that no one is offended or embarassed. And when you're finally done and line up the machines they discover a rare kind of gold hamster and you have to wait until they hibernate, dig them out without waking them, transfer them to a new location and make nice new holes for them to sleep in (true story). And when that's done, you'll find that people have chained themselves to the trees you need to cut down, and another year passes by until politicians, courts, police and press have sorted that one out. And then you've got hordes of inspectors who fine you when someone on your building sites has his helmet a little bit askew or the health insurance data is out of date for 2 days.
We got a new central train station not so long ago, for which neighbourhoods were razed and train lines rerouted through a crowded old city with historic buildings etc. The politics were horrible, and it's far from perfect, but the project was both on time and on budget. One of the PMs went on a tour to give talks on how they managed that rare feat. Here're his main points: minimize Outsourcing. and another one: Inhouse expertise, built over decades and retained. And: Minimize Outsourcing. The train company has been split up and semi-privatised half-heartedly, but they still retained their identity and they still do planning, building, sourcing material, all the hard stuff themselves, with people doing that for a long time, for the little huts along the lines for storing and for 30km tunnels through mountains. Those in turn build on processes developed by their predecessors over an even longer time. They have relationships to suppliers and building companies who are happy to work with them because it's a very profitable long-term connection. They don't hire low-bidders who go bankrupt midways.
All those people do a lot of expensive sitting around between projects, but it seems to be worth having them.
He didn't say this, but I also think: Money goes more or less directly from state to the people who do stuff. The state pays very little interest on loans and there are few hedge funds who require their cut for every EUR spent. And yet a lot of people still make a healthy(!) profit. A friend has a company that does documentation of work permits,
Please, regulations are there for a reason, processes can be useful, sometimes even necessary to keep things reasonable and on track. They are not evil. Point the finger somewhere else.
Excellent FOC crew wages research in relationship to the research by the Stella Maris Seafearer group philanthropic ports, worldwide. Also note the S/s United States held the Blue Ribbon Trophy for fastest transatlantic voyage too. (Cite USMMA.)Propulsion transition from Steam to MV Diesel onward to LNG, with harder testing academics for Chief Engineer & Master Mariner licenses, thank you IMO addressing the SOLAS, Safety of life at Sea concerns. I recall a old 80s article in Lloyds Maritime, "Little Ships Bigger Problems - Bigger Ships, Less." Not recalling the vessel/port drafts issues as a concern back then for ship owners. If they want our customers, the ports will reinvest was the attitude. How times have changed, just buy an island. Cheers, Nice work. J
I just want to comment to say please keep posting these articles on Substack. I would like to find time to read WIP much more often, but it slips my mind. If it’s right there in the Substack app I can get it where I go to read articles anyway. Thanks.
Seconded; if I can't get a WIP magazine delivered to my door, Substack is the next best thing, and I will definitely forgot to check elsewhere.
The illustration of the massive progress in cruise ships indeed evokes a sense of unbounded optimism. This trend is also evident in the evolution of modern cargo ships, which have grown significantly in size and capacity.
However, all good times may come to an end. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recently announced ambitious and, in my view, unrealistic decarbonization targets. The entire shipping industry is required to cut emissions by 30% by 2030, 70% by 2040, and achieve net-zero by 2050. Non-compliance with these targets will result in substantial penalties: a $100 per tonne CO2 tax for slight non-compliance and a $380 per tonne tax for significant non-compliance.
These targets seem overly stringent and impractical. I had not anticipated such aggressive measures from the IMO, which has historically maintained a relatively laissez-faire approach. For context, the EU economy is already struggling with a carbon price of $60-70 per tonne. The IMO's new regulations could either force a reconsideration of these targets or risk disrupting the global trading order.
I would like to protest, after reading the same argument over and over. It's not that we (here in Austria) have less regulation. I don't know anything about the details, but projects have to go through years of environmental impact studies, neighbourhood and technical review processes, etc. Often a decade or more. There are EU mandates that require enormously complicated and lengthy bidding processes so that no one is offended or embarassed. And when you're finally done and line up the machines they discover a rare kind of gold hamster and you have to wait until they hibernate, dig them out without waking them, transfer them to a new location and make nice new holes for them to sleep in (true story). And when that's done, you'll find that people have chained themselves to the trees you need to cut down, and another year passes by until politicians, courts, police and press have sorted that one out. And then you've got hordes of inspectors who fine you when someone on your building sites has his helmet a little bit askew or the health insurance data is out of date for 2 days.
We got a new central train station not so long ago, for which neighbourhoods were razed and train lines rerouted through a crowded old city with historic buildings etc. The politics were horrible, and it's far from perfect, but the project was both on time and on budget. One of the PMs went on a tour to give talks on how they managed that rare feat. Here're his main points: minimize Outsourcing. and another one: Inhouse expertise, built over decades and retained. And: Minimize Outsourcing. The train company has been split up and semi-privatised half-heartedly, but they still retained their identity and they still do planning, building, sourcing material, all the hard stuff themselves, with people doing that for a long time, for the little huts along the lines for storing and for 30km tunnels through mountains. Those in turn build on processes developed by their predecessors over an even longer time. They have relationships to suppliers and building companies who are happy to work with them because it's a very profitable long-term connection. They don't hire low-bidders who go bankrupt midways.
All those people do a lot of expensive sitting around between projects, but it seems to be worth having them.
He didn't say this, but I also think: Money goes more or less directly from state to the people who do stuff. The state pays very little interest on loans and there are few hedge funds who require their cut for every EUR spent. And yet a lot of people still make a healthy(!) profit. A friend has a company that does documentation of work permits,
Please, regulations are there for a reason, processes can be useful, sometimes even necessary to keep things reasonable and on track. They are not evil. Point the finger somewhere else.
And substack offers audio, which is great. Fascinating article though. And as a occasional sailor I invite decarbonization measures of IMO
Excellent FOC crew wages research in relationship to the research by the Stella Maris Seafearer group philanthropic ports, worldwide. Also note the S/s United States held the Blue Ribbon Trophy for fastest transatlantic voyage too. (Cite USMMA.)Propulsion transition from Steam to MV Diesel onward to LNG, with harder testing academics for Chief Engineer & Master Mariner licenses, thank you IMO addressing the SOLAS, Safety of life at Sea concerns. I recall a old 80s article in Lloyds Maritime, "Little Ships Bigger Problems - Bigger Ships, Less." Not recalling the vessel/port drafts issues as a concern back then for ship owners. If they want our customers, the ports will reinvest was the attitude. How times have changed, just buy an island. Cheers, Nice work. J