Tag Archives: sustainability

Upcoming European tsunami

I never heard of the European Union’s taxonomy regulation before.

It’s designed to increase investment in green economic activities, and discourage investment in environmentally sensitive ones. Essentially it codifies the Poseidon Principles into an EU policy.

The term ‘taxonomy’ comes from the intent to classify investments with regard to a number of criteria. In other words, you can’t call an investment ‘green’ unless it speaks to these issues, and meets established criteria.

According to the author, the taxonomy regulation has several main environmental points, as well as social ones:

  • climate change mitigation
  • climate change adaptation
  • sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources
  • transition to a circular economy
  • pollution prevention and control
  • protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.

The author is a bit concerned that the regulation will give non-European companies an advantage in pursuing shipping investments. And he’s worried about the effect on shipping finance, though he supports the idea of green investment. He just thinks there will be a time of disruption in the financing of maritime activities, with good long-term effects but some short-range dislocation.

That dislocation could affect supply chains in general. For instance, slower steaming will effectively reduce the capacity on main shipping lanes. And the fact that newbuild years are booked two or more years ahead will prevent faster turnover or augmentation of the fleet with cleaner ships.

Nonetheless, adoption will clarify what a green investment means, and will reduce greenwashing— publicizing efforts that are relatively small improvements as major contributions to environmental improvement. And, especially in Europe, it will put down a marker for firms and individuals to reach for.

Dagfinn Lunde April 21, 2022

Upcoming European tsunami – Splash247

Vietnam steel giant Hoa Phat moves into container manufacturing

Others are discovering that they can dump steel by making it into containers. While the Vietnamese steelmaker Hoa Phat mentioned in the article won’t be a large percentage of the demand, it’s significant.

And since more goods are now being exported from Vietnam compared to before the Chinese lockdowns, supplying new containers on the spot may be a better option than moving them from the US and other places.

This means there will be a glut of containers in importing countries. The only option may be to scrap them when they arrive. Ocean carriers and shippers will prefer to buy new containers at the exporting site rather than shift the old empty ones back for more cargo, at present fuel prices and increasing pollution and crew charges.

It’s a real waste to scrap the containers if they are used only once. While steel is recyclable, it’s a torturous road, and we aren’t set up to do it at scale. And a tremendous waste of effort.

All are examples of exogenous charges, as the economists say. They are not factored into the original price of shipping the goods, so they aren’t paid by the shipper. They also aren’t paid by the carrier. They instead erode the general welfare of the communities who have to deal with the empties. It’s a classic scenario in sustainability.

By Martina Li in Taiwan 04/04/2022

Vietnam steel giant Hoa Phat moves into container manufacturing – The Loadstar

The Hidden Costs of Containerization

This article stresses the awful situation seafarers find themselves in, as a result of ships being stranded offshore unable to unload or load, and national COVID rules about flying and debarking, which prevent them from getting home when their time at sea ends. It’s a terrible situation, and countries have not done enough to make it better. International organizations such as the ILS don’t really have much influence in the face of the pandemic.

That’s not the only cost of containerization. Just like Amazon packaging, empty containers are overwhelming America’s ports, and large ports elsewhere. Countries that import more than they export are at risk of a buildup of empty containers. The original idea was that they would go back cheaply to exporting countries, kind of like HP empty printer cartridges, to be refilled and sent again, an example of a reverse supply chain.

Enter the Chinese steel industry, and Chinese nationally-backed container manufacturers. Cheap steel in China and a huge demand for containers has conspired to let these firms make new containers for just about the cost of bringing the empties back. One could argue that it’s better to use a new container because it’s less likely to have hidden damage that might affect the cargo, and that might offset the small price difference. Also eliminated is the coordination overhead of managing the shipment of empties, and then matching the empty used container with a shipper that needs it, and getting it to the loading spot.

The article also points out that the very large container ships of today have caused enormous capital investments at ports around the world. Their draft of around 50 feet meant that harbors needed to be deepened, bridges raised (New York); and their length meant that extra-long quay space is required, cutting out space for smaller barges and feeder ships (Rotterdam, Antwerp) which meant that inland transport of goods (and return of empties) could not be as efficient and timely.

The huge capital investments at ports also created winners and losers. Ports that invested reaped the benefits of increased traffic. A port is an economic engine in its neighborhood, providing jobs and business flow. Ports that did not or could not invest can no longer count on ships coming.

It’s interesting that now, in the midst of the congestion panic, a few larger shippers are forsaking the world of the megaships and alliances. They are chartering smaller container vessels themselves, buying their own containers, and seeking ports that don’t have the same level of congestion. IKEA, Amazon, Wal-mart, and others have sufficient cargo flow that they can invest in this bypass to the ocean carrier-dominated shipping scene. This could prove a boon to smaller ports who did not invest before, but who can handle the smaller ships.

It’s an old adage of operations management that a lean system will reduce batch size. In terms of our supply chains, that would mean smaller ships, more frequent sailings, and use of a wide variety of ports. And it would spread the wealth and the environmental issues shipping brings over a wider landscape.

BY AMIR KHAFAGY FEBRUARY 2, 2022

The Hidden Costs of Containerization – The American Prospect