penfold
Well-known member
No consequences have fallen on the owner of the ship carrying the fertiliser, who abandoned it and its crew when it became too difficult/expensive to fix it. If it wasn't in thrall to scumbag owners it might have regulated emissions in a way likely to work, be readily regulated and done so long before it actually happened, not the way that's cheapest. Ditto ballast water, bilge water, manning, etc. The ease with which scumbag owners abandon ships, escape the consequences of wrecks and avoid paying crew is all within the IMO's remit.The Beirut explosion was caused by a number of factors, but I genuinely don't think any of them can be traced back to the IMO. Things like that tend to happen in corrupt countries that have had no effective government in decades, but I don't think it is up to IMO to be checking or enforcing (it has no enforcement powers) what conditions cargoes are stored in member countries.
I'd also dispute that it is in thrall to 'scumbag shipowners'. Like all UN organisations, it is simply the collective will of its member nations.