An insightful article in today's Business Times caught my eye. It was titled "Shipping industry milked to fill Green Climate Fund", by David Hughes. It certainly spoke to me of factors in the environment that are beyond the control of most of us. Whatever we may think of the GCF, carbon tax laws or related topics, it is certain that there are many groups lobbying for their own interests. The shipping industry is, in fact, a very low contributor of "greenhouse gases", or GHGs, when compared to many other industries, even when comparing within the global supply chain system. Yet, it seems that the shipping industry is about to fall victim to yet another twist in the global blame game. Exporting and importing goods via surface shipping has always been, and still is, cheaper than alternatives like railways or air freight. Stratfor has an article on the geopolitics of wealth which explains why the United States is so rich - natural resources, including agriculture, that are easily transportable by vessels of deep draught due to the existence of water systems like the north-south orientation of the Mississippi Basin and the whole Great Lakes-St Lawrence chain. By contrast, Russia, though herself not lacking in similar resources, has always faced the challenge of transporting goods, especially perishables like agricultural products, over vast distances. Russia does not have the equivalent of the deep water systems the United States enjoys and hence is forced to use railways, with the attendant higher costs of maintenance for equivalent tonnage of cargo.

David Hughes asserts that the purpose of the coming United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) in Durban, South Africa, is simply to extract as much money as they can out of the shipping industry by imposing carbon taxes on bunkers, to the tune of US$25 per tonne. He opines that the shipping industry would not be able to avoid this altogether, but would instead have to "roll with the punches" (my term), and simply make the best of it. In the end, money would certainly be acquired for the GCF from the maritime industry. It does not take much skull sweat to figure who eventually pays the price.

Do you face similar challenges in your industry? How are you posturing to meet them? Posturing is different from positioning in a manner similar to how static equilibrium differs from dynamic equilibrium. A tripod is a very stable design in a static environment. It also forms the basis for extremely rapid and stable movement in non-flying insects. (Insects move three legs at each step, and the pattern of insect "footprints" looks similar to that of a bipedal creature with tripods for legs). An F16 fighter is designed to be stable at high speed, demonstrating dynamic equilibrium. Leaders ought to have time to constantly posture their businesses in a dynamic environment. I have said in earlier posts and newsletters that leaders ought to have at least one-third of their schedules as "white space". Unfortunately, many leaders spend too much of their time trying to manage people in their organizations. Establish character and/ or leadership development cultures in your organization, and you will have much more "white space" to do what you are supposed to do - maintain vision, formulate and execute great strategy.

Continue feeding your core, and you will be well placed to be a dynamic and winning organization! Go well!