EDITORIAL COMMENT


Shipping has a role to play in keeping the planet safe


The shippning industry has not been standing still on this issue and progress, though slow, has been made


problems. Tough with the election of Barack Obama that at least may now become less difficult. Copenhagen may not prove to be the


S


conference that rescues us from the blight of global warming, but it could mark a beginning of salvation. It could prove to be an historic moment for the shipping industry in particu- lar, the day that ship operators and owners finally started to come clean. If the International Maritime Organiza-


tion (IMO) is as good as its word it is waiting in the wings for its moment, for politicians to give it the go-ahead and then it will introduce the changes necessary to save the climate. Or at least to enforce a change on the maritime industry that will substantially reduce the share of greenhouse gases (GHG) that it emits. To be fair to the shipping industry it has not


been standing still on this issue and progress, though slow, has been made. A framework, would however, with targets and stringent sanctions for those that still need convincing that it is for their own good as well as for others would add steel and speed to this process. Even so some of what the IMO calls the “low


hanging fruit”, the easily realised savings, was only picked when the price of oil became so inflated in the first half of 2008 that shipown- ers found their costs spiralling. It was only then that owners in the container industry began slow steaming. Crisis management? Well perhaps not


quite, but there’s nothing like a little economic imperative to shiſt the debate on.


The Naval Architect November 2009


aving the world was never going to be easy. Even convincing some people that the world needed to be saved has had its


Economic imperatives may well be what


it takes to convince owners of chemical and product carriers that sailing without knowing whether their vessel meets damage stability regulations is not an option. To the outside observer it appears that


there is no debate to be had here. Surely all responsible owners make certain that their vessel, especially those that carry toxic and other dangerous substances, has the best possible chance of surviving if it is damaged before it leaves port? On the face of it owners appear to want to be able to ignore these rules rather than


“Copenhagen may not prove to be the conference that rescues us from the blight of global warming, but it could mark a beginning of salvation”


install a comparatively cheap laptop and programme that will indicate whether the vessel complies with damage stability rules. Maritime and Coastguard Agency


(MCA) officers estimate the total cost for equipping a vessel with a damage stability computer would exceed £8000. Te total


cost for the clean up of a toxic spill runs into the millions. Te total cost to the marine environment cannot be measured in sterling or dollars. Of course installing a damage stability


computer will not prevent accidents from happening, but it might just mitigate the effects of such a misfortune and may deflect much of the justified criticism that would surely come the way of the maritime sector as a result. Tat really is worth having. It is of course issues such as these that


when the wider public becomes aware, usually through an accident which causes untold environmental damage, that is when shipping’s image is firmly planted into the publics’ mind. The time to deal with these situations


is before they happen, not when disaster has struck and images of expiring wildlife flailing pitifully are beamed to every front room across the globe. By then it is far too late, possibly even if the floundering ship meets damage stability rules. But the censure awaiting those that fail to comply with regulations and whose vessel leaks thousands of tonnes of a toxic cocktail onto thriving coastlines hardly bares thinking about. An owner willing to take such risks would


be the type of person who would risk his last £5 pounds on the lottery rather than invest in a meal. Such an owner may as well sail his ship through a storm standing on a one legged stool with a noose around his neck and his hands tied behind his back. No doubt he would scream of all the injustices of the world when his gamble does not pay off. NA


7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68