From ClimateREALISM
A recent article in the Financial Times (FT) claims that “War and climate change drive surge in global shipping costs.” The part about climate change is unsubstantiated because no long-term data support it. While it is undeniably true that war shutting down the Strait of Hormuz has had an impact on shipping, and other bottlenecks have also raised prices, the alleged climate change impact is speculative at best. The climate connection is made because of low water levels in certain shipping lanes, but this is not actually caused by climate change.
The FT states very firmly that the recent higher cost of shipping is “due to war and climate change,” justifying the climate claim by saying that “low water levels caused by long periods of drought in Europe and Latin America has pushed up rates along key shipping routes including the Panama Canal, the Rhine, the Red Sea and Black Sea to record highs, according to pricing agency Argus.”
It is true that drought in Europe and in parts of Latin America has caused lower water levels in important waterways, but it isn’t due to climate change. First of all, climate is measured over a 30 year period, so a single summer or couple of summers’ various droughts in different parts of the world is no proof of climate change. That’s just weather, and is also impacted by some longer-term natural cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation. The FT admits this much, admitting that El Niño has exacerbated the drought impacting the Panama Canal. Again, this isn’t climate change.
The lake that primarily feeds the Panama Canal, Lake Gatun, supplies water to the communities of the Panama Canal Watershed, both drinking water and agricultural irrigation. The lake is low this year. The population taking water from the lake has grown. It is widely recognized by everyone, except the FT apparently, that urbanization is putting increasing pressure on the water supply. Although authorities prioritize the canal’s operations, in a dry year, amidst El Niño’s shift of rain patterns in Panama, demand for water is higher for agriculture and residential use. The government is trying to thread the needle and keep all water users satisfied, in the process the lake levels are falling.
In spring of this year, lakes Gatun and Alajuela both had record highs for March, but demand and El Niño have since reduced levels. Water levels often drop in the summer, and deforestation has also made it more difficult for the lakes to recharge, as more water on the surface evaporates instead of absorbing into the soil beneath the canopy.
Deforestation and population growth both put pressure on water supplies, and are man-caused, but they are not climate change.
The other drought FT references is the one in Europe which has impacted water levels in the Rhine.
Drought is not unprecedented in the Rhine, nor any major European river. It is true that river levels are very low. Recent years have seen less precipitation on average in Germany than in the 80s and 90s, but it is comparable with low precipitation in the 1950s. Data from the Mainz station in Germany, right on the Rhine, suggest the lowest precipitation on record was in 1892. Why, then, are Rhine levels hitting record lows now?
As with the Panama Canal Watershed, population growth and urbanization along the Rhine and the lakes that feed have resulted in increased water demand with the result that when drought occurs, water levels can fall very quickly.
Much more severe drought occurred in Europe long before industrialization. The Megadrought of 1531-1540 was so severe, some rivers dried up entirely. Global average temperature was lower then as was atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, yet a sustained severe drought still occurred.
It is unfortunate that these weather conditions have coincided with at war in the Middle East that has resulted in multiple bottlenecks or closures of major shipping lanes at the same time, but that has nothing to do with climate change. The Financial Times stepped outside their area of expertise in making the climate change assertion, and by doing so has badly misinformed its readers.
The Financial Times is as bad as the Guardian when it comes to climate doom.
Don’t forget to add the impacts of terrorist nations — Iran threatening shipping through the Strait of Hormuz; Somali pirates threatening shipping in the Red Sea.
Weather and regional wars tend to be temporary phenomena (Russia’s prolonged self-immolation in Ukraine excepted).
Russia’s prolonged self-immolation in Ukraine does not come close to historical wars, such as the Hundred Years’ War.
Wars are analogous to hurricanes. Build up, blow hard, then die of exhaustion.
“Deforestation and population growth both put pressure on water supplies, and are man-caused, but they are not climate change.”
This, unfortunately, will be weaponized by Trans-Reality Activists as justification for euthanizing human populations.
War, in and of itself, is the result of POLITICAL climate change. 🙂
Throw everyting in the same pot and call it “climate”…in German they call it “Eintopf”…regardless the ingredients or if you like/want it or not you’
‘ll gonna swallow it because that’s what’s on the table…period.
Not much has changed since way back in “das days” or? sarc
Don’t forget that the Panama Canal added a third set of locks to handle much larger ships and it started operation in 2016. The original pair of locks could handle ships that were 110 ft wide and 1050 ft long with draft of 40 ft while the new set of locks allow transit of ships that are 180 ft wide and 1400 ft long with a draft of 60 feet. The amount of water used in the third set of locks is more than 3x the amount of water in each of the original sets of locks.
Thanks for the good information.
The FT and PBS are great learning centers…. for how not to think. It’s just time consuming to learn that way though and stalls new, useful learning in the process..
Is it too much to expect the mass media to employ reporters who are somewhat grounded in the subjects that they cover?
During World War 2 it was obvious that the conflict and the usual Atlantic and Pacific storms were driving up shipping costs, but why didn’t anyone include climate change as one of the culprits? c
Could it be that no one had devised the myth that excessive fossil fuel consumption and emissions from widespread military and naval actions could be utilized as a potential revenue generating source?
Very nice Linnea.
Good points. Drought isn’t climate change it’s weather. FT stretched it too far.
I do find Linnea’s articles interesting and readable. Thank you.
Linnea: Nice post!
Of course, the recent opening of the Northwest Passage, that should decrease shipping costs, will be ignored by the alarmists. Afterall, they can’t admit there could any positives to warming or more CO2.