Actors in the maritime transport sector need to consider greater threats than those currently identified and also prepare for a more advanced adaptation timetable
argue PortEconomics members Jason Monios and Gordon Wilmsmeier in their latest port study entitled “Deep adaptation to climate change in the maritime transport sector – a new paradigm for maritime economics?”
The study is published in the scholarly journal Maritime Policy and Management in open access format and its full version is freely available here.
There are many indications of the impact of climate change on the coastal economy that will affect ports both directly and indirectly. In recent years a significant body of work has been established on climate change adaptation by ports. Like climate change mitigation, work towards adaptation has stalled on the same collective action problem, whereby public and private sector actors avoid commitment to necessary investments. Recently the concept of ‘deep adaptation’ has appeared, which suggests that, rather than climate change bringing simply incremental challenges that can be adapted to in a piecemeal fashion, in fact, we should expect ‘disruptive and uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction, migration, disease, and war’. However, current port and shipping forecasts continue to predict uninterrupted growth with only minor incremental policy changes already known to be insufficient for mitigation and adaptation.
Deep adaptation as a new paradigm based on regime transition in the maritime transport sector
It is clear that we know what actions are needed for mitigation, namely complete decarbonisation which will include a large reduction in shipping, but such actions are not even on the table. Allied to this inaction on mitigation, decision-makers, both public and private, are only beginning to think seriously about adaptation, while the radical restructuring of the economy required for transformational or deep adaptation is even further off the agenda.
“It is clear that we know what actions are needed for mitigation, namely complete decarbonisation which will include a large reduction in shipping, but such actions are not even on the table. Allied to this inaction on mitigation, decision-makers, both public and private, are only beginning to think seriously about adaptation, while the radical restructuring of the economy required for transformational or deep adaptation is even further off the agenda. Market solutions have been shown to fail, thus the only potential solution is strong regulation on environmental performance for mitigation and radical restructuring of cities, ports, and economies for adaptation“, state PortEconomics members Jason Monios and Gordon Wilmsmeier, who continue:
“As far as mitigation is concerned, if we believe the latest climate science then neutral observers should reject the IMO target of 50% and only support the IPCC target of 0% carbon emissions by 2050 in order to meet the Paris Agreement aim of keeping the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. Such a target can only be reached by banning fossil fuels in shipping by 2050, which would provide certainty to industry and a 30-year planning horizon. MBMs could be used to accelerate this transition and avoid operators waiting until the 2040s to act, but such measures must be linked to a clear ban on usage by 2050 otherwise they will be ineffective.
The argument of their port study is that,” regardless of whether mitigation action is taken, deep adaptation will be forced on government, industry and public alike. The advent of even some of the many obstructions to trade detailed in section 2 may require radical changes in supply chains and a reduction in shipping capacity as a result of smaller vessels, shorter distances and contracted supply chains. Given the emergent nature of the science and the difficulty of projecting forwards, providing simple recommendations regarding what industry should do in the face of deep adaptation is not a simple matter and requires new research regarding the future shape of production and consumption in climate-ravaged cities and new supply chain structures. This research agenda will require that maritime economists embrace heterodox economics related to degrowth as well as more interdisciplinary approaches”.
The clear implication arising from the predictions of climate scientists is that industry decision-makers should plan for a future of expected regulations on activity and a drastically altered production and commercial landscape with less global transport and higher costs
