#savetheplanet

Shipping industry needs to save ITSELF before it has any chance of saving the PLANET

E02AC2C7-BA8C-4735-AED7-B3683D7C60BA.jpeg

Yet more eco-mentalism being celebrated by the UN International Maritime Organisation (IMO) with little thought to the very economics that has crippled shipping companies for so long. Shipping companies need to save themselves before bothering to save the planet.  Although the back slapping for the supposed “watershed agreement” (their words) will be achieved by 2050. The most pressing global issue of our times and these metal hulks which burn the ugliest, dirtiest and cheapest fuel (bunker) available have 32 years to get there. Perhaps the irony is that bankruptcy might take half the ships out of service meaning the emissions target could be hit decades earlier. A brief look at history.

It wasn’t so long ago that Korea’s largest container transporter Hanjin Shipping declared bankruptcy.  The above chart shows the daily shipping rates for the industry which remain tepid for the past decade. The problem with the shipping industry is the fleet. Ships are not built overnight. Surging order books and limited capacity meant that as the pre GFC global trade boom was taking place, many shipping companies were paying over the odds without cost ceilings on major raw material inputs (like steel). This meant that ships were arriving at customer docks well after the cycle had peaked at prices that were 3x market prices because of the inflated materials.

The pricing market was looking grim in 2016. CM wrote, “These are the latest prices in 2016 vs the 5 year average by type. New LNG, grain and oil carriers etc are holding up but the used market is being slaughtered. Ships are generally bought with a 25-yr service span at the very least. Global seaborne trade growth has shrunk from 6%+ growth in 2011 to less than 2% now.”

Ship Prixces

According to Weber’s Week 4 report, VLCC rates for the route from the Arabian Gulf to China dropped to $10,925 per day on January 26 from $18,389 per day on January 19, which represents a 40% fall week-over-week. The average rate for all VLCC routes dropped to $13,179 per day from $19,974 per day on January 19. The current rates are 67% lower year-over-year.

Clarkson’s note 2010 build Capesize rates have fallen from $20,000/day 6 months ago to less than $3,900/day as of April 2018. 84K CBM LPG carriers have fallen from over $800,000/mth in April 2016 to $542,000/mth today.

Take a look at the financials of global leader Maersk. It recorded $US27.1bn of revenue in 2012 but only $24bn in 2017. Yet profitability slumped from $2.1bn to a paltry $25mn. Maersk carries around $34 billion in deferred tax loss carry forwards. That is the extent of the ‘financial baggage’ it still carries. The three major Japanese shipping companies have had a hell of a hit to profitability in recent years. See below.

Shippers.png

If the volume of goods transported by sea increases 3% every year, the volume in 40 years will be 3.3 times today’s volume. To cut total CO2 emissions in half by 2050, CO2 emissions per ton-mile need to fall by 85%. NYK is looking at the following ship that will cut emissions by 69% in 2030.

If the shipping industry is not fixed through market forces it will be difficult to repair the profitability and balance sheets that would allow the companies to invest in more eco friendly vessels. Bankruptcies are mergers are needed to streamline the sector.

According to Clarksons, the global fleet of all types of commercial shipping is 50% larger than it was before the GFC despite the World Trade Organization saying growth in global trade has crept up from $14.3 trillion in 2007 to $15.46tn in 2016 (+8%). Scrapping rates have fallen 40% since 2012 but since 2017 have risen moderately, appealing to owners with too much tonnage on their hands.

The International Chamber for Shipping’s secretary general Peter Hinchliffe said, “This is a ground-breaking agreement — a Paris agreement for shipping — that sets a very high level of ambition for the future reduction of carbon dioxide emissions…We are confident this will give the shipping industry the clear signal it needs to get on with the job of developing zero carbon dioxide fuels so that the entire sector will be in a position to decarbonise completely.”

What a wonderfully naive plan. At least the IMO can feel warm and fuzzy despite so many headwinds ahead of an industry still in structural distress.

Hot Air

Canadian Conservative politician, Robert Sopuck, tried to get the Minister for Environment, Catherine McKenna, to answer a simple question on how much the $50/ton carbon tax would lower CO2 emissions by. In true leftist ideological fashion, she rattled on about the pressing need to save the planet. He asked again – just wanting a number – which again fell on deaf ears. Surely had Trudeau’s cabinet properly assessed the financial and social impact it’d gladly be able to champion the ‘impact’ it was making on saving us. That ‘number’ would at least sound more convincing that there was method to the madness, rather than empty taxation with no benefit on limiting global warming. Talk about hot air.

Tesla HK sales in July-Aug just 2 (yes, just two)

D1469D7E-EE24-4503-A6B9-224277CCADB2.png

Here we can see the progression of Tesla sales in HK after the subsidies were removed. Of course the 3,697 number is front loaded but the poor Tesla dealer must be twiddling his thumbs dreaming of a sports car that can do 1.9 second 0-100km/h times in heavy HK traffic. 2 sales in the July-August period. Indeed the incentives were generous but just goes to show that the true virtue signaling power of those living in HK is dictated by displaying the wise use of capital than frittering it away trying to save the planet.

The truth in bumper stickers

CE84AB5D-9983-41A9-AC00-BF4086D0D315.jpeg

Its often said that bumper stickers carry harsh truths wrapped in comedy. On the highway yesterday see exhibit A – “After you please to save the earth”. This is a good reference to human behaviour. How often we see that the people who preach the global warming faith often  don’t practice it. Gas guzzling SUVs continue to dominate new car sales charts and according to the IATA air travel is expected to “double” by 2030. After all when 50,000 climate alarmists fly to exotic locations half way around the world  every year to kneel at the altar of the UNIPCC and tell us why we must cut our environmental impact. Then again we only need listen to IPCC co-chair of a working group Dr Ottmar Endenhofer who in his own words said, “We [UNIPCC] redistribute de factor the world’s wealth by climate policy…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. T has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”

Blowing the whistle on NASA over climate data

IMG_0884

Jo Nova has an excellent piece exposing the scams inside NASA with regards to their climate models and allegations of misappropriated taxpayer funds. She notes whistleblower Dr Duane Thresher who worked seven years at NASA GISS “describes a culture of self serving rent-seekers, mismanagement and incompetence. These are the top experts in the climate science field that we are supposed to accept without questioning. Those who say they are working to “save the planet” care more about their junckets than they do about the data or their “best” model…NASA GISS’s most advanced climate model is run from the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Thresher recounts a story from someone on the inside:“NASA GISS’s climate model — named Model E, an intentional play on the word “muddle” — is called the “jungle” because it is so badly coded.” I know this to be true from my own extensive experience programming it (I tried to fix as much as I could…)…”

Of course I can hear the alarmists cry  that Thresher is a ‘discredited’ scientist as they do for anyone who disagrees,. Much in the spirit of the Harvard piece I put out last week, venerable organizations like NASA (which has put humans into space) carry almost untouchable status. This is the problem. Do we just suck up aything we are told by these organizations or do we need to add an extra layer of skepticism because of the ‘reputation’?

It is truly hard to imagine that the brain’s trust that makes up an organization that can launch rockets and space shuttles can be guilty of such sloppiness. Such whistleblowing will  lead to a congressional testimony which will bring many things to light. It wasn’t long ago that NOAA was subpoenaed after a whistleblower said the group had rushed a report ahead of the Paris climate summit with obviously fiddled data that fit a narrative. NOAA refused to hand over the emails for months on the grounds of privacy  when the head of House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith explained the reality that they worked for the government and had no choice.

Smith noted, “According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy…I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

Once again whenever people try to use the ‘credibility’ argument to sway debate, there is a treasure trove of evidence to show in this case that it is politics not science. With billions if not trillions at stake, such fraud has not resulted in any of these climate scientists being fined, deregistered or jailed for the very things that have happened to people in the financial sector. What is the difference I wonder? Maybe because the government has been in on the act…

Even Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has been recently exposed for divisive behaviour in temperature measurement. Putting hard floors on cold temperatures with no such restrictions on warm weather. We’re supposed to trust these bodies? More on that tomorrow.

Well as the old adage goes, “there are lies, more lies and then there are statistics”

America IN or OUT makes no difference to a dud Paris Climate Accord where 75% aren’t onboard anyway

IMG_0698.JPG

Across social media there are dozens of posts from Americans apologising to the world for abandoning the Paris Climate Accord. “There are millions more like me.” Yes you are probably right but there are millions like him too. What people should question is the ‘real’ commitment to the accord. If we were to replay the video tapes of the Paris COP summit we were hearing wails and gnashing of teeth that there was no agreement pending. Then in the final throes we were led to believe that an agreement was reached. The joy! The triumph! We did it! Here is the catch! It was agreed by ‘politicians’ not ‘scientists’. Politicians are renowned over the millennia to making compromise and commitments way beyond the scope of their likely hold on power.

Climate commitments are the ultimate level of virtue signaling and tokenism. Politicians can say in their legacies that they tried to save the planet for their great grandchildren even if nothing is achieved. Remember how the long held 2 degree upper limit target was  heralded as a no quid pro quo line. At Paris it became 1.5. In order to accelerate alarmism the upper band had to be cut to get countries to redouble their efforts. All of a sudden, decades of climates science that told us that 2 was acceptable (bearable) became 1.5 degrees with the stroke of a pen.

As I wrote yesterday, the garage of your neighbour was more telling of individual climate commitment. In Australia one energy company offers a service which gives you the opportunity to pay a premium over fossil fuel based power to source your energy in green form. Take up rate? Less than 5%. Who elects to tick the carbon offset box when they fly commercial? I don’t think many airlines even bother with this such is the low take up. Not to mention carbon calculators are so inaccurate. A passenger has no idea what the load factor, headwinds/tailwinds, holding patterns and conditions en route are that the figure you pay would be more accurate if spewed out of a bingo wheel.

Let’s check reality of the climate game. 75% of the evil gas that helps plants grow are caused by 4 countries – America, China, India and Russia. Let’s tackle them one by one.

America. Well the commitment to the Accord was so flimsy to begin with, It was laced with out clauses such as being exempt from being sued for any environmental damage caused in the past or future. Obama decided to tick the box himself after lawyers breathed on the fine print – remember the US was the last to commit.

China. China, China, China. The commitment is so robust they don’t have any intention to  get serious until 2030 (likely peak emissions). China has explicitly said it will raise the coal share of power to 15% by 2020 from 12% and this will keep climbing. China’s pollution problems have stuff all to do with global warming but public health however it can virtue signal under the banner of climate change mitigation and win brownie points.

India. The construction of 65 gigawatts worth of coal-burning generation is under way with an additional 178 gigawatts in the planning stages in India will mean they’ll not achieve Paris targets.

Russia’s commitment at Paris would have been more serious if drafted on a hotel napkin such was its lack of substance. 4 pages of nothing.

The accord is worthless. It was rushed at the end by bureaucrats not scientists. If it is really such a binding pact there will be no need to have 50,000 climate pilgrims kneel at the altar of the next religious cult meeting. They should thank America for its action because it will guarantee the hypocrites get to keep the junkets in exotic tourist locations going.

To double up on the stupidity, hearing virtue signaling politicians blather about remaining committed to a target that is now so fundamentally broken shows how untenable it is. Think about it. If America (at c20% of the supposed problem) quits then the remainder of countries have to fill in the gap not stick to existing commitments, Sure Merkel said she’d up Germany’s targets to offset the evil Trump which is pretty unachievable given the already high level of renewables.  China said they’d chip in but don’t think those comments are any more than empty platitudes trying to puff up the image of commitment when economic resuscitation is priority #1.

The irony is that Trump said he’d consider another deal. Another deal is what is needed. Because as it stands, the Paris Accord has all of the hallmarks of political manifestos across the globe – uncosted  broad based promises made against flimsy but overwhelmingly positive/negative assumptions.

So before I read more garbage about Americans having an imperative to take power back, perhaps they should examine the realities rather than the figment of imagination floating around inside their heads. Millions more like you is actually the problem why the message never gets sold properly.

Climate hypocrisy – go check your neighbour’s garage to gauge the fear

IMG_0440

When a politician fulfills a promise shouldn’t we be happy? Do we want them lie so we can live in a perpetual state of disgust? Trump walked away from the Paris Climate Accord as he said he would in the election campaign. Yet articles I read were titled “Trump to planet: Drop dead” (CNN). However if people and journalists truly examined how flimsy that the US commitment signed by the High Priest of virtue (President Obama) was with regards to Paris they would have to accept that it contained more out clauses than a pre-nuptial contract. Like an alcohol free beer it was a pretend signature. One part of it guaranteed that the US wouldn’t be held liable for any ‘damage’ to the environment claimed by other countries.

The best way to think about climate change is to start by looking in your neighbour’s driveway. I’m in Sydney at the moment and the amount of SUVs is astonishing. The five segments that have added the most volume in 2017 YTD vs 2016 are: medium SUVs, 4×4 utes, small SUVs, large SUVs and 4×2 utes, in that order. Where are the save the planet sipping hybrids and compacts? Yet Aussie governments at the state and federal level want to commit to huge renewable targets thinking its a vote winner when consumption patterns don’t reflect it.

IMG_9102.GIF

It seems that Americans don’t give a hoot about saving the planet either. SUVs (light trucks) are the preferred vehicle of choice. So maybe it is more Americans don’t give a stuff about climate alarmis or Paris, even during Obama’s reign. So why don’t journalists turn from moaning about Trump fulfilling election promises and examine consumption patterns of all of us.

Sure journalists could take the current line of climate alarmism and push all of the stats from the UNIPCC and NOAA again about how doomed we all are but after decades the argument of this settled science isn’t won. Yes gasoline and diesel engines maybe getting more efficient but the fact sales of larger sizes vehicles are growing overall (trend been rising over the long term) show us human nature puts self interest first. Should a sailing enthusiast be forced to ditch his passion because the V8 Land Rover required to haul his yacht is blasphemous to the environment? Should a family with four kids be forced to use public transport because a 7-seater minivan is just so unethical?

Parhaps the 50,000 climate pilgrims that fly each year to kneel at the UNIPCC altar to warn us of the pending doom if we don’t take drastic action might talk to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). “IATA expects 7.2 billion passengers to travel in 2035, a near doubling of the 3.8 billion air travelers in 2016. The prediction is based on a 3.7% annual Compound Average Growth Rate (CAGR) noted in the release of the latest update to the association’s 20-Year Air Passenger Forecast.”

So when I read CNN and other media outlets attempt to tell Trump he’s told the world to get stuffed, maybe they’d realize by past, current and future consumption patterns that the world has already told alarmists to get stuffed.

Perhaps the hypocrisy, double standards and scandals of those that preach the faith is the problem. The delivery over decades has failed to win hearts and minds. Had sensible debate, fairly reported scientific facts void of embellishment and sensible policy been put forward to address the climate then maybe humans would have taken more serious steps? As it stands Trump is in the majority not the minority. 190 countries don’t speak for 7 billion people. And if you want proof in the pudding of the sustainability of green jobs, the first chart highlights the trend of renewable jobs by state in Australia.

IMG_9103