Why Ship Breaking is an Export for Developed Countries and an Import for those which are Underdeveloped: Asbestos Makes a Difference.

Ship breaking (scrapping) is a classic situation of developed countries (in World Systems terminology, “core states”) sucking up the good parts of technology, production, capital, and profits, while exporting the bad parts to lesser developed areas of the world (“periphery states”) willing to accept what the core countries allow, in exchange for taking risks otherwise not acceptable in the developed countries. There is a degree of both Capitalism and Marxism in this analysis, but I personally believe that the asbestos related issues hold meaning when viewed solely using common sense.

The World Systems Theory was developed by Immanuel Wallerstein and my understanding comes from the book entitled World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction published in 2006 by Wallerstein. This book is only 90 pages but, rather than being an easy read, it is a major league pain (eye bleeding type of pain) to understand and fully digest. I won’t get into the complete theory in this blog, but as to asbestos and other toxic materials which are found in the production process, Wallerstein provides the following analysis:

“The tacit assumption — and the moral justification of the profits — is that the producer is paying all of the costs. In practice, however, it does not work that way. The profit is a reward not merely for efficiency but for greater access to the assistance of the state. Few producers pay all of the coast of their production. There are three different costs that are normally externalized in significant measure: cost of toxicity; costs of exhaustion of materials; costs of transport. Almost all production processes involve some kind of toxicity, that is, some kind of residual damages to the environment, whether it is disposal of material or chemical waste, or simply long-term transformation of the ecology... But these costs are then externalized, in the sense that either immediately or, more usually, much later, someone must pay for the negative consequences, by means of either a proper clean up or restitution of the ecology. This someone is everyone else — the taxpayers in general, through their instrumentality the state.”

In the United States and most developed nations, the laws are much more limiting in terms of allowing producers to externalize costs related to asbestos during ship breaking than they are in underdeveloped countries; hence, it is less expensive for private citizens to ship break in those countries than to do so in the United States, United Kingdom, the European Union, etc. Far from being random or arbitrary, this is an intentional difference using laws, regulations, and customs so as to encourage the work in-country for places such as Bangladeshi, Pakistan, and India.

To clarify, the more impoverished the country and its citizens, the more that the country and the people are willing to risk their health and environment in order to put a roof over their heads, feed their families/people, and to otherwise survive. As to asbestos related health concerns, those concerns may well take a back seat to these types of issues by the involved people and governments given the 30 to 40 year delay in asbestos related diseases. That is, a choice of surviving today versus a risk of Mesothelioma in 30 years seems to lead to a logical conclusion by those most affected. This doesn’t make it right but, rather, explains why the governments in underdeveloped countries provide leeway to the companies and their owners who provide the capital to invest, employ laborers, and then profit from ship breaking.

Hence, why some consideration needs to be given by the developed countries who’s citizens built and used the ships as to the safety of the down-stream, end of life ship breaking. In summary, we talk a good game about not exporting our pollution to third world countries and I am hopeful that my research will investigate how well our actions coordinate with our words.

How important are asbestos related issues in ship breaking? Central and significant. As stated by OSHA during the 1990 hearings on the Surplus Vessel Act of 1990:

“We understand that the Subcommittee is particularly interested in the asbestos hazards to which workers may be exposed and in OSHA’s regulations governing those exposures...

Consequently, OSHA’s experience with worker exposure to asbestos in the last decade has been with ship maintenance and repair and ship breaking. Exposure levels have been shown to be high when old asbestos materials are being removed.

Our experience indicates that exposure levels are highest during the removal or rip-out of old asbestos materials. Rip-out often requires sawing tearing, cutting, and scraping to remove existing asbestos materials. OSHA anticipates problems in controlling exposures during rip-out operations…

I do not need to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that exposure to asbestos can lead to illnesses that are life-threatening or disabling.”

I am curious as to whether any of my blog readership deals with ship breaking related issues. Drop me a note at TheAsbestosBlog@gmail.com or leave a comment. Thanks. Marty