When dreaded carbon dioxide was first mooted at a shipping conference in Shenzhen eight years ago, it seemed like the next Big Thing bureaucrats insist we all worry about. Not then, but soon we were to tremble and obey their instructions and whatever they wanted done. At the time, there was the sound of note of resistance.

And for a while shipping lobbies would question it, asking why they should be worried if the earth's temperature increased a degree or two in the next 100 years.

No one was too clear about that, other than assuring us that scientists knew it was truly scarifying, leading to shockingly bad outcomes. But ask Google about the harm done by carbon emissions today and one gets: "Rising of sea levels, disturbance of animals' natural habitats, extreme weather events". I have heard the extreme weather claims competently and completely debunked by respectable post-nominalled experts. And that is forgetting that experts in the past assured us that there would be global famine by 1975, brought about global cooling and a new ice age. Then came the Club of Rome computer model that assured us we'd run out of oil by year 2000. But the snows have not melted on Mount Kilimanjaro despite experts predictions to the contrary.

Yet despite this appalling record of unfulfilled promises, the bureaucrats, and their expert hired guns, persist in spreading as much panic as possible in the face of profound public indifference.

All they can do is fund nuisance lobbies, ally themselves with radical leftists bent on destroying capitalism. And curiously, at the very apex of the capitalist food chain, we find major corporations making common cause with the Marxist greenies. And together with bureaucrats, they make a near irresistible force.

Yes, the Maersks, the Cargills, the Mitsubishis, who would appear to be victims in good standings of this state-sponsored eco madness, are in league with the Marxist greenies. And on closer examination one can see why.

Clues to determine the whys and wherefores of this unlikely alliance between the anti-capitalists and super-capitalists can be found in a recent article in London's S&P Global. Its plea for greater clarity on the implementation of the new ship norms on carbon emissions amid apprehensions that can lead to severe complications and disruptions is to be ignored? At issue here are the costs.

Not that the horrendous costs are the subject of protest, just the multiplicity of rules and regulations that make regulatory compliance an operational nightmare with one authority demanding this and another demanding that, with gaps and overlaps multiplying like Australian rabbits.

Compliance costs alone are not a cause of objections for the Wall Street-Footsie A-listers. However burdensome they become, the major players will have banks waiting on them hand and foot. But smaller shipowners cannot meet these bureaucratically-imposed expenses as readily, and will soon be encouraged to sell out, leading to more mergers and acquisitions in an already greatly consolidated market.

Some of these concerns surfaced at last September's Asia Pacific Petroleum Conference 2022 in Singapore. Su Yin Anand, head of shipping at South32, a mining and metals company headquartered in Perth. The practical issues associated with trade flows may not necessarily make it easy for an owner to get the top three ratings under the new regime, she said.

"With less than 100 days to go [January 2023], for the upcoming Carbon Intensity Indicator, or CII, to be implemented by the UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO), industry players worldwide are sceptical on its compliance and operational success, unless these complexities are unraveled at the earliest," said Ms Anand.

From January, all ships over 5,000 gross tonnes will be rated based on historical data. CII measures carbon dioxide emitted per cargo-carrying capacity and nautical mile. The ship is then given an annual rating ranging from A to E, and the parameters will be tightened every year.

"Ships that achieve either a 'D' rating for three years or an 'E' rating for a single year, will have to implement an enhanced Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan, or SEEMP to reduce their emissions. IMO aims that majority of the global merchant fleet of over 85,000 ships be 'A' rated by 2025, with only a few exceptions in the 'B' or 'C' categories," she said.

CII is even more complex than the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index, or EEXI, and its implementation will require some adjustments between the owners and charterers on the terms and conditions of contracts. 

Said Cargil's shipping and energy analyst Rakhi Rastogi: "Owners, operators, and charterers typically engage in deals to charter ships over a span of several years."

But Ms Anand said there is no clarity on whether some of these ships will lose their licences to operate if they do not meet their emission goals and are below the rating threshold.

So far, the trajectory does not look steep enough and there will not likely be much consequence of not being able to meet the top three ratings, Mr Rastogi said. "The shipping industry must see more before it can say this is meaningful."

In 2025, the IMO will conduct a review to adjust or correct CII, to ensure that the marine industry is in line to reduce its carbon emissions by 70 per cent from current levels by 2050. However, maritime and shipping industry has only two per cent share in the global carbon emissions from all sectors.

Under the rules, carbon intensity is measured when there is a transfer of ships from one party to another. "It is not clear," said Mr Rastogi. "There might be problems that have not been thought through."

According to Ms Anand, more contractual clauses in charter party agreements are required because the charterers will be expected to return the ship to the owner with a similar rating to which it had taken the first place.

"More clarity is also needed around how an owner claims damages if the ship is redelivered with a lower rating, making the company susceptible to penalties," she said.

"To be sure, CII is the right step forward to introduce a standardised marine carbon rating system, but in its pursuit of simplicity, it is inherently flawed," Ms Anand said.

This is because CII cannot be applied equitably across all vessel sizes as those ships that do regional trades or have historically adopted a business model with very short ballast legs, will likely be penalised by this ratings system, she said.

While the issue raised is worthy enough, the most salient point has been omitted. That is, whether the threat of carbon dioxide is serious enough to do what is being done. Is the cure worse than the disease? Surely, Google, when asked what harm is done by CO2 emissions could come up with something more scarifying than "Rising of sea levels, disturbance of animals' natural habitats and extreme weather events". Some reason to justify the draconian measures that have been inflicted on the industry.