A key economic difference between communism and national socialism is that communists insist they own the means of production while Nazis are content to control it.

While avoiding communism, the western free markets appear to have fallen prey to a national socialist fate, becoming prisoners of ever expanding environmental, health and safety regulations, requiring permission to implement any initiative.

Long exempt from these restrictions, owing to the international structure of world shipping, the sector has been caught up in this regulatory web comparatively recently, and to be fair, actively protesting its inclusion.

But rather than protesting the reason for such regulations, the international shipping community only objects to the regional nature of the regulatory agencies enforcing new rules, pleading instead that an international regulatory framework be established at a later date to do what bodies like the European Union want to do now.

Without evidence either provided or sought, there exists unexamined assumption that the reasoning behind these regulations are sound and the restrictions are necessary and the consequences of non-compliance will be dire.

The problem appears to be is that international shipping does not speak with one voice on this. The bigger companies have gone "woke", to stay in line with what the media, academic, bureaucratic complex sees as the right course, in the expectation that a plurality of the public will follow suit.

There is also the fact that bigger companies, which have got bigger over the years, having halved its rivals over 10 years with the larger ones gobbling up the smaller, and having done so are better able to meet rocketing compliance costs than their less creditworthy rivals that are no longer is business.

The python-like squeeze on the private sector is evident everywhere, and in an advanced state worldwide. Yet there are advantages for those seeking to defend ancient liberties of the high seas, there are also disadvantages that the attacks on the land-based private sector are so advanced that no one dare question why such regulations are needed at all.

The bureaucratic offensive advances on the health and safety front as well making a myriad of demands for environmental improvement. This, of course, promises the state a host of opportunities to promulgate new regulations, and provide largely female graduates from colleges and universities jobs in their now burgeoning inspectorates.

But let us return to why such regulations need be at all. Searching the Web for a statement that explains the dangers of global warming is frustrating. Again and again one is treated to overblown rhetoric without any evidence to support the near hysterical claims. And this is when one asks for pros and cons on the global warming question.

Take this from Climate Save Movement: "Animal agriculture and fossil fuels are devastating our planet. We need to take drastic and immediate action. This year and decade are crucial if we are going to stop runaway climate chaos. There are more frequent and severe extreme weather events from hurricanes, floods, forest fires to droughts and sea level rise. Increasingly there will be areas of the world too hot to live in. Disease vectors are spreading with rising temperatures. Ecological and agricultural systems could break down and possibly lead to mass starvation."

Few question the truth of such claims. There is even an underlying sympathy with the objectives. Objections are limited to practicalities: "Opponents of alternative energy argue that there is a much higher upfront cost, the sun and wind are intermittent sources of energy and we do not yet have storage capabilities, so backup energies will be required, and there are geographic limitations, including environmental factors, that could prevent building big wind or solar farms."

On the pro side "Proponents of alternative energy argue that renewable energies and/or nuclear energy are cleaner than fossil fuel energies, they won’t run out, and the maintenance requirements are lower. Additionally, alternative energy will save money, has health and environmental benefits, and decreases reliance on foreign energy sources."

On the con side: Opponents of 100 per cent renewable energy policies argue that natural gas and/or nuclear power are necessary bridge fuels already in use with low carbon outputs that can help lower global temperatures quicker than renewables.

Pretty meek stuff from the cons when asking Google for arguments pro and con.

The Cyprus Chamber of Shipping is protesting the European Union on the basis that it does not feel that it will effectively decarbonise shipping. The underlying assumption is that decarbonisation is a worthy goal.

The chamber contends inclusion of shipping in the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS), including its extension to shipping - and the FuelEU Maritime proposals – which aims to increase the use of sustainable alternative fuels in European shipping and ports - does not ensure absolute emissions reduction.

And thus returning to the old argument, or what more properly might be called an evasion, the chamber says you are not persecuting shipping in the right way, to wit;

“The decarbonisation of the shipping industry is a global and not a regional challenge and as a regional market-based measure, the EU ETS will seriously undermine the ongoing international efforts and negotiations at IMO towards the sector’s decarbonisation."

The very complex characteristics of the shipping industry, with numerous ship types, trades, contractual relationships and stakeholders involved, make the ETS with a fluctuating carbon price, a system that will negatively impact the many small and medium sized shipowners who form the backbone of European shipping.

To be fair to the Cypriot chamber, they have done much the same as other shipping lobbies, and the only reason they have been singled out is that they suddenly appeared in public print stating their position that differs little from other such  bodies.

One would rather the shipping companies reduce rates, and return the cost savings accruing from lower slot costs than having them go in carbon taxes to fatten the coffers of bloated Brussels bureaucrats. One concedes that profits, the consequences of mega ships and shrinking slot costs, the benefits from ever automating terminals and their falling costs, should not go to the richest segment of the industry. But at the same time, nor should a remedy to that problem go to hiring masses of minions to micromanage and industry where fewer and fewer problems exist beyond the rapid increase bureaucratic intrusion.