SAVE THE PLANET WITH MODAL SHIFT

Ted Sangster, ceo of Milford Haven Port Authority, makes a simple but often overlooked point in the news pages of this issue. Sangster, who steered his port through the messy aftermath of the SEA EMPRESS pollution accident (see PS November/December 2003), reminds us, and more specifically the politicians and statutory bodies who finally rule on these matters, that shipping and ports comprise the most environmentally benign mode of freight transport available to us.

Environmental lobby groups would do well to remember this before they arbitrarily reject dredging and other port development schemes designed not to stymie their agenda, but to facilitate the burgeoning movement of world trade.

Then again, who wants a steel and concrete eyesore blighting the coastline IF, and it’s a big IF, it’s not needed?

We are fortunate in that our industry does take the environment seriously. A glance at our news pages proves this. And throughout Europe and other parts of the world, there are real efforts being made towards modal shift from road to water. These initiatives are fraught with political, social and environmental obstacles but success stories are appearing, albeit too little, too slow.

Portswatch, a UK consortium of eight environmental and transport NGOs, says ministers have yet to prove that more ports are needed or say where they should go if they are. In Troubled Waters, the group’s manifesto, Portswatch says the potential of existing ports should be explored and overall demand assessed nationally rather than new port applications being considered alone.

This would limit damage to legally protected wildlife sites and disruption to local communities, they say.

No one would argue with that. But environmental campaigning groups such as Portswatch would also do well to heed the words of a Greenpeace spokesman interviewed recently following the surge in oil prices. He pointed out that arguably the two greatest problems mankind faces today are climate change and terrorism. One way or another oil lies at the heart of both these threats. Anything that can be done to mitigate the negative impact of fossil fuels on our future should be seized upon therefore, and if that means promoting the transport of goods by water, obviously with due regard to the highest environmental standards and practices, rather than road, then let’s embrace it.

Wildlife shows itself to be remarkably adaptable when learning to live amongst its human cohabiters. And when we put our minds to it we can create some very acceptable wildlife habitats within our industrial landscape. Many ports have active environmental protection programmes. And if they don’t then they certainly should. Ports we’ve talked to have often been surprised at the strong relationships that have evolved from working with environmental and local resident groups.

At a conference in the northern UK port city of Newcastle recently, the promoters argued for east and west coast feeder services to transfer containers from the congested south (Southern Discomfort as it’s known) to the demand centres of the Midlands and North via northern ports. It’s the kind of initiative that could – and should – be repeated all over the world. But the stumbling block to the success of such schemes always comes back to cost. The cost of the extra box moves incurred at the second port for example. Trucking a container 500-800km, with all the negatives of time lost by road congestion, rising fuel costs, driver shortages, working time directives, not to mention the spectre of road taxes, should simply not cost less than feeding that same box from hub to secondary port, offloading it, re-loading it from the stack to a truck for onward delivery to final destination. At least you might think so. And yet, very often, it does.

Subsidies? Freight facility grants? Marco Polo schemes? They’re often just a drop in the ocean. And does the mantra of: “not if they distort competition” have to be so slavishly followed every time?

By worshipping at the altar of free market economics, by placing shareholder value above all else, or indeed by placing butterfly welfare above carbon emission control, are we in fact turning a blind eye to more pressing and disturbing realities? What was that about Rome burning while Nero fiddles?