Tag Archives: sustainability

Cyprus seeking EU support for shipping industry sanctions impact

Sanctions have made many ocean carriers change the registry of their ships to countries that are not involved in enforcing them.

Cyprus is one such flag state. As a member of the EU, Cyprus follows their policies on sanctions, which are among the strongest. So ships registered in Cyprus may not carry Russian cargoes.

Shipowners who want to trade Russian or Iranian goods, such as oil, can’t do it with Cyprus-registered ships. So they flag them elsewhere.

The Cypriot registry has lost about one-fifth of its tanker registry since sanctions were imposed on Russia. According to 2021 registry figures, Cyprus was 11th in dead weight tons (DWT) registered among the registries of the world, with over 1000 ships registered (not all tankers). This is a significant loss of revenue.

Cyprus is going to apply to the EU for compensation for the loss of registrants.

I’m not sure this is how to deal with the problem. There’s plenty of evidence that flag states are not dealing very well with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) problems in their own countries. By World Bank measures, there has been little improvement on many of their 68 ESG measures in Cyprus and other countries. They are thus less likely to be good enforcers of cooperative goals such as sanctions or emissions. Paying them for losses doesn’t seem like a good strategy.

There are already requirements for Cyprus to follow EU sanctions rules. As a flag state Cyprus needs to get approval from the EU for such rules as a tonnage tax discount. I think this is just following the rules they agreed to when Cyprus joined the EU.

Seatrade logo

David Glass | Feb 20, 2023

Cyprus seeking EU support for shipping industry sanctions impact

Not enough SAF for air cargo to hit net zero – carriers must find other routes

It’s becoming obvious that there’s no way that enough sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) can be produced to meet the needs of air traffic.

Carriers are already suggesting they will need to play a little use in their path to ‘Net-Zero’ emissions. They plan to take advantage of strategies which allow them to keep emitting but using offsets with technologies that have been declared legitimate to shelter fuel use.

Such technologies concern purchasing carbon credits and developing carbon capture sources. But those do not actually reduce the emissions from air traffic.

I’m interested by what Glen Hughes, the director general of The International Air Cargo Forum (TIACA) said for the article below.

“What’s important is the capacity to monitor a company’s total ESG impact and activities in a manner that fulfils audit requirements and has a direct impact on investment decisions by equity firms and banks.”

Source: Loadstar Article

Clearly this sidesteps serious ESG improvement for the industry and promotes a form of gaming the rules.

Promoting watered-down audit requirements and shaping how investment decisions are made by large investors clearly takes precedence over actually improving emissions. The premise that investment firms and auditors are to determine the world’s response to environmental improvement is patently ridiculous. TIACA is promoting a specious response. A harsh judge could call it a form of greenwashing.

To be fair, I will quote Mr Hughes again, from the same article, citing six questions to answer for supply chain officials:

 “Am I being as environmentally responsible as I can? Am I using recyclable materials? Am I optimising transport? Am I using sustainable energy or compensating for emissions? Am I supporting global prosperity and economic growth? And how can I, my partners and supply chain stakeholders continually improve?”

Source: Loadstar Article

Compensating for emissions is a big loophole. And if you use the loophole, are you being as environmentally responsible as you can be?

Leaving it to investors and politicians to decide does not seem like a wise course.

By Alex Whiteman 20/02/2023

Not enough SAF for air cargo to hit net zero – carriers must find other routes – The Loadstar

The worst January for US intermodal for ten years, and no sign of relief

It’s no wonder that US intermodal traffic is declining. Poor service from the railroads has made using any system that involves a transfer an invitation to delays. And shippers can’t afford delays.

Companies offering intermodal container service don’t have enough pull with the railroads in the US to get highly regular service. And now that container rates are dropping fast, shippers won’t pay an excessive amount for the service. So the large rails don’t feel any obligation to serve them well.

Will the major rail lines make any adjustments? My guess is they will be dragged kicking and screaming to provide more reliable service. The fuss they are making over simply making regular deliveries of feed grains to major customers, and the resistance to reciprocal switching, and the labor difficulties they are experiencing show that they don’t feel that customer service is top of their mind.

Why not? Recently I read a book about Charles Lowell, a young man from Massachusetts who fought in the Civil War. Before the war, and after graduating first in his class from Harvard, he worked as an agent in Iowa for a firm building railways west in that state. Each time they completed 25 miles of railway, the firm got a large new swath of land from the US government. The firm had to survey the land, decide on their route through it, and sell the land they didn’t need to fund the next 25 miles. They sold the land to migrants, from the east or from other countries, who were moving west to obtain cheap land for farms and businesses, their piece of the American Dream. There was a lot of graft in these land dealings. But Lowell insisted that his firm sell at a fair price and not engage in special deals with investors speculating on the land. His reason was interesting and farsighted.

Lowell believed that the railroad needed customers, and that was what he was creating by selling them land.

Today’s railroad executives don’t seem to think they need customers.

There are plenty of reasons to use intermodal for container shipment. It reduces emissions. It could be faster. It could require fewer transloads. (Most US truck traffic from ports is transloaded to 53-foot truck chassis before a cross-country trip). And it could be safer, and cheaper, or at least no higher in price, for the shipper. Rail lines could participate in this effort to reduce pollution while making the business profitable for them by operating their lines efficiently to accommodate it. But it does require them to serve their customers, those who want to ship on intermodal.

Too bad rails can’t seem to focus on the advantages it offers and shape their business around it. It would save the hassle of government regulation forcing them to accommodate it.

By Ian Putzger, Americas correspondent 10/02/2023

The worst January for US intermodal for ten years, and no sign of relief – The Loadstar