Hauser & Wirth’s white paper (which cites something I previously wrote) exploring the plausibility of sea freight is courageous but ultimately shows why it will not have a major impact on fossil fuel emissions in its current state.

I want to make sure my opinion is clear on this topic: we should utilize all tools available to make our shipments more efficient which will ultimately reduce our institutional emissions. Few institutions have the resources to explore this topic the way that Hauser & Wirth has and we need to acknowledge that important contribution.

My issues with shipping by sea ultimately come down to uncertainty. The uncertainty has several negative bi-products such as increased risk to the objects, increased complexity of planning, increased burden on staff, and no considerable reduction in cost.

Uncertainty places the burden of emission reduction on the collection, its objects, and its stewards and not on the users of the resources. Let me explain what I mean by that statement. Many professionals have reassured me that sea freight can safely transport works of art and that stories about containers abandoned at sea get vastly over-indexed. However, objects in transit for weeks instead of hours take on much more risk both in the crate and on the ground. Someone has to plan for this, monitor this, mitigate this. The objects have to endure this.

Uncertainty ultimately prevents scalability. The white paper demonstrates an increased burden the logistics place on those managing the shipments. More variables (time in transit, increased planning time, reefer containers, port accessibility, etc.) introduced into the shipping equation provide an increased workload for those involved in the shipping process. This creates uncertainty. The increased headache, more importantly, prevents adoption on a large scale (unless, of course, it simply becomes exponentially easier) to truly affect emissions at scale.

Other key factors not sufficiently discussed in the conversation orbiting sea freight is the accessibility of a port and, consequently, the amount of terrestrial transportation required to get the objects to the boat. What if the point of origin or the final destination resides far from a port city? This can dramatically affect emissions, cost, and transit time. It is said, “Everything touches a truck.” Low emission, electric trucks and other ground transportation are the real silver bullet here. Let us find a way to make this happen.

Lastly, the biggest reason that sea freight will most likely not have a major impact on emissions in our sector is due to the lack of any real incentives besides “doing the right thing”. It costs about the same. It takes longer. It places more of a burden on staff. Why do it unless you have no other choice? One must have a true incentive, usually financial, to make a big impact.

The methods that I prefer to reduce emissions serendipitously also reduce costs. There is no better incentive than cost reduction. Additionally, these methods also place the burden of emission reduction on those who use the resources and not the objects themselves. This is what I have been calling the economic eclipse and what I believe our shipments should naturally strive for: lower cost, lower emissions, better object care. See some examples below and here:

• Ship less = lower shipping cost

• Less staff travel = less travel cost

• Longer exhibitions = less shipping

• Improve HVAC = lower cost

By the way, any insurer will tell you that most damage to objects occurs in transit, hence the concentration on shipping as a means to improve object care (and lower cost and lower emissions).

Other options that move the burden of emission reduction from the objects and collections managers to the user of fossil fuels:

• Charge for emissions and donate the money to emission-reducing causes

  • Add a small % to the sale of a work (see Marian Boesky Gallery’s Carbon Conscious Contribution)

  • Add a cost to your museum’s loan fee

  • Shippers can add this cost to their services (some do)

• Again, HVAC, is the biggest user of energy and producer of emissions

• Where is the discussion about renewable energy sources powering our buildings?

I have already written a lot about other options, but my point is the same in general. Sea freight is one tool in our toolbox but one that does not currently have the potential to make a big impact due to its increased uncertainty and ultimate inability to scale enough to change our habits. Further, we need to shift the burden of reducing the emissions from the objects to the users of the objects, and consequently, make the shipping/usage of collections more efficient and cost effective. Most of us who work with art and artifacts do so for our love of the objects, and for this reason, we should prioritize that which betters their care and preservation. Sea freight asks the professionals who manage those shipments to radically change existing protocols. Big changes in emissions requires big changes in practices without a doubt, but I believe we cannot achieve those cataclysmic changes without incredible incentives. We should also hold those utilizing the resources responsible for their usage.

I ultimately want to reiterate, that Hauser & Wirth and I have a common enemy and seek the same goals. They have actually tried it. They have put their own resources on the line for the cause. We must appreciate that they have done this. Further, I appreciate their reading of my previous article and hope that we can continue to push each other to improve our field.