28/3/25

AM I AN OPERATIONS RESEARCHER?

Now that we settled (or not settled) the issue whether or not I am a maritime economist (see HERE), comes a similar question: am I an operations researcher? 

Below is some related material.

The trigger for this discussion has been the recent (circa 20.03.2025) podcast of Anand Subramaniam, a colleague in Brazil, in which he interviewed me on my professional career, from an operations research (OR) perspective. In the podcast I also talked about some aspects of my personal life, and references were also made to Pele, the Olympiacos football team, the Rolling Stones, the Boston Celtics, and Claude Monet. See HERE for that podcast. I am grateful to Anand for this interview and I want to commend him for his overall effort, to interview more than 100 OR people. 

So here is the story:

My first (undergraduate) studies were at NTUA, where I got a diploma in naval architecture and marine engineering (NA&ME). No OR here. 

I first became aware of OR when I went for graduate studies at MIT in 1974, and I did not go to MIT to study OR. I went to MIT (dept. of ocean engineering) to get a dual MSc degree in NA&ME (see above) and in shipping and shipbuilding management (S&SM). A common thesis was planned for these two degrees. 

It was during the course of the S&SM curriculum that I took some classes that had a strong OR content. These included probability, mathematical programming, and operations management. This is when I started developing an interest in OR, and it was then that I realized that MIT had the so-called OR Center, an interdepartmental OR program with faculty coming from many MIT departments. 

However, I could not just switch to OR, as I did not have financial support in that area (I was working as a research assistant in ocean engineering). The breakthrough came in late 1976, and before I finished my MSc program, when Amedeo Odoni, a professor in the aeronautics and astronautics department (and also in civil engineering) offered me a research assistantship to work for him on some vehicle routing problems, effective summer of 1977. This would be for my PhD. 

I made the switch with a lot of excitement, but also stress. I still remember when I bought Hillier and Lieberman's "Introduction to Operations Research", how exhilarated I was that I was entering this field. But at the same time I was quite apprehensive on whether I would succeed. It was a big jump that I had decided to take, and how exactly I would land (and where) was not clear. 

Just as I was starting my PhD work (summer of 1977), I attended the EURO/TIMS International Conference that took place (of all places) in Athens, Greece. This was my first OR conference (I didn't give a paper). I remember a session on mathematical programming chaired by Marshall Fisher, an expert on vehicle routing whom I would get to know better several years later, when I was a faculty member at MIT. Speakers in the session included Nicos Christofides, Egon Balas and George Nemhauser. At that session in Athens, I was in awe of these and other OR heavyweights.

The fall term of 1977 was one of the most productive of my entire student life. I made most of the progress during my PhD during that term, and I really enjoyed it. I  produced a dynamic programming algorithm for the aircraft sequencing problem with maximum position shift constraints, a problem that was solved only heuristically so far. Then I produced a similar algorithm for the dial-a-ride problem, a problem in urban transportation. Mind you, I did this while I was still a student in the ocean engineering department. I defended my PhD in the fall of 1978 and I received my PhD degree in May 1979.  This PhD thesis won the so-called “dissertation prize”, an award sponsored by the Transportation Science Section of ORSA (the Operations Research Society of America). ORSA & TIMS were the precursors of INFORMS. 

I received the award at the ORSA meeting in Milwaukee, fall of 1979. The picture below is from the award ceremony. Also shown are John Little (left), then President of ORSA, and Richard Rothery, then Editor-in-Chief of Transportation Science. (I am not the only one with a beard in the pic). 











Another picture shows a box that has all my PhD thesis in it. Complete with handwritten text, supervisor's comments, computer runs, typewritten original, the works. The thesis was typed (not by me, but by a secretary) on an IBM Selectric typewriter. There was no word processing at the time. After many years, the box now resides in an attic near Athens. 











ALL of my research when I was a faculty member at MIT (1979-1989) was OR-related. I had an appointment at the ocean engineering department, and I was its (only) OR faculty, being also affiliated with the MIT OR Center. My predecessor at ocean engineering (Jack Devanney) was also an OR person. 

Research included a series of projects on oil spill response, a project on ocean acoustic detection, two projects on dial-a-ride systems (with Amedeo Odoni and Nigel Wilson) and a project on ship routing and scheduling (with Jim Orlin). 

I also taught courses on mathematical optimization (with David Marks) and on logistical and transportation planning methods (with Amedeo Odoni, Dick Larson and Arnie Barnett), both listed jointly with other MIT departments. 

My most exciting project at MIT was a project to develop graphics software for mathematical optimization courses at MIT. See HERE

During my MIT faculty years (1979-1989), I got to know many other MIT OR faculty, including Tom Magnanti, Al Drake, Steve Graves, Rob Freund, Dimitri Bertsekas, John Tsitsiklis and Dimitri Bertsimas. 

During that period I attended practically all ORSA and TIMS meetings (held twice a year), and met many OR colleagues in other universities around the world. Among them, I can name Bruce Golden, Larry Bodin, Stella Dafermos, Gilbert Laporte, Marshall Fisher, Marius Solomon, Pitu Mirchandani, Alexander Rinnooy Kan, Jan Karel Lenstra, Paolo Toth, and many others (apologies for the many omissions). Add to these the 1978 Optimization Days conference in Montreal, the 1979 International Math Programming Symposium in Montreal, the 1980, 1982 and 1983 EURO conferences in Cambridge, Lausanne and Vienna (respectively), the 1981 IFORS conference in Hamburg and the 1984 TIMS International conference in Lyngby. List may not be complete. 

When I moved from MIT to NTUA in Athens in 1989, for a Professorship position on maritime economics and management in the NA&ME department, I was basically told that "you should do shipping, not OR". As a result, my OR activities scaled down significantly, even though I still kept some contact by publishing some papers and by maintaining my Associate Editorship in Transportation Science, which I actually held for 32 years (1987-2018). I served under 6 Editors-in-Chief (Amedeo Odoni, Mark Daskin, Gilbert Laporte, Hani Mahmassani, Michel Gendreau and Martin Savelsbergh). I also guest-edited two focused issues on maritime transportation and ports (in 1999 and 2015). 

To be sure, there were colleagues at NTUA who were into OR more centrally than me, but they were dispersed in other (engineering) departments. These initially included Dimitris Xerokostas, George Cosmetatos and Ioannis Pappas, and later Danae Diakoulaki and George Mavrotas. There was (and still there is) no OR or management department at NTUA. 

So at NTUA I was essentially doing OR whenever I could, and sometimes in my spare time. Other activities (and there were many) had priority. A sort of  breakthrough came in 2010, when I published a vehicle routing paper in EJOR, for which I actually programmed the code myself (in Fortran!), some 30 years or so since I had last coded at MIT. This paper was not funded by any project. It was exhilarating to revisit the area. 

I went to very few INFORMS meetings during my 24 years at NTUA (1989-2013). As far as I can recall, I only went to the 1994, 1995 and 2011 meetings, in Boston, New Orleans and Charlotte respectively. I also went to the 1990 IFORS conference in Athens, to the 1991 and 1994 TRISTAN conferences, in Montreal-Quebec and Capri, respectively, to the 2010 Italian AIRO conference in Calabria, to the 2012 EURO conference in Vilnius, to the 2012 International Math Programming Symposium in Berlin, and to the 2012 Odysseus conference in Mykonos  (again, list may not be complete). There were surely other conferences too, but without a main OR content. 

Needless to say, I did very little or no OR when I was CEO of the port of Piraeus (1996-2002). As I have said to many, the most serious OR problem in Piraeus was determining the marginal cost of the container terminal! This was something that we had to do in order to decide on our pricing structure. I published ZERO papers during that period, but I managed to guest-edit a focused issue in Transportation Science (1999). 

At NTUA I also taught (among other courses) a course on maritime transport economics and one on applications of decision analysis in maritime transport, both of which had some OR content.

When I moved to DTU (2013-2023), I came a notch closer to OR, but I do not think it was at a level similar as MIT. Most of my research and teaching activities were in the sustainable transport and logistics area, with much emphasis on sustainable shipping. There was surely OR in both. I finished my official academic career as a Professor in the department of technology, management, and economics, division of management science, section of operations and supply chain management. People who are into OR at DTU include David Pisinger, Stefan Røpke, Jesper Larsen, Allan Larsen, Thomas Stidsen, Richard Lusby, and Dario Pacino.  I even chaired a search committee for an OR Professor position. 

One remarkable thing for DTU was that in my time there (10.5 years) I published more papers than in my 35 or so years at MIT and NTUA combined. Not sure how this happened, but it did. I did not do it intentionally. 

In my time at DTU, I went to one INFORMS conference (2014, San Fransisco), to four EURO conferences (2013 Rome, 2015 Glasgow, 2016 Poznan, 2018 Valencia), to an INFORMS/TSL workshop (2013 Pacific Grove), to an IFORS conference (2014 Barcelona), to a Verolog conference (2014 Oslo), to an Odysseus conference (2015 Ajaccio), and to a LOGMS conference (2017 Bergen). Again, this list may not be complete and there were also other conferences without a main OR content. 

I also organized, on behalf of DTU, two ROUTE workshops, one in 2014 and one in 2018, both in Snekkersten, Denmark. ROUTE workshops were initiated and organized by DTU colleague Oli Madsen, who retired in 2013. They were by invitation only and brought together many vehicle routing experts around the world. 

Turns out that vehicle routing is the area in which I have most of my citations.  Seven out of the top 8 most cited papers of mine (Google Scholar) are in this area. See also HERE

Below is a pic from the 2018 workshop. One can see Irina Gribkovskaia, Maria Battarra, Gilbert Laporte, Janny Leung, Jan Ehmke, Jakob Puchinger, and many other vehicle routing luminaries. 



The first of the two books I published while at DTU was “Green Transportation Logistics: the Quest for Win-Win Solutions,” (2016). This was published by Springer, in the context of its International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. I contacted (the iconic) Fred Hillier, who was the Founding Series Editor, to propose the idea to him, and I was thrilled that he accepted. The book has had some 96,000 chapter downloads. For more on the book see HERE

I was elected 
International Liaison Officer of the Transportation Science and Logistics (TSL) Section of INFORMS (2013-2017). Also I was a member of the TSL Best Paper Award Committee, 2018- 2020; and its Chairman in 2020. 

Among my last papers at DTU was an encyclopedic paper written by a total of 82 authors. It was a paper published by the Journal of the OR Society in 2024. I wrote the section on maritime transportation. See HERE.  Plus, I co-authored a paper in Transportation Science, some 41 years since my previous paper there. See HERE.

My academic career officially over, fully 8 of my top 10 cited papers, including the top 4, are OR-related (all in vehicle routing). My top cited paper is from my PhD thesis at MIT, published in Transportation Science. But most of my papers are on ship emissions. Very few of the emissions papers are OR-related. 

So in what "heavy OR-content"  journals have I published? Which journals qualify for that label is subjective, but still I can list the following (list may not be complete): 

MIT (1979-1989): Operations Research, Management Science, Transportation Science, Transportation Research Part B, Networks, European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR). 

NTUA (1989-2013): Operations Research, Annals of Operations Research, EJOR.

DTU- (2013-2023):  Transportation Research Parts B and E, EJOR, Networks, Transportation Science, Journal of the OR Society.

To be sure, there were also several papers in other journals, such as in Transportation Research Parts C and D, Flexible Services and Manufacturing, and others, that had an OR content. 

So all in all, and revisiting the original question, I am not sure I can answer it precisely. Perhaps an answer is, "I used to be an operations researcher. Then I hung around for a while. Then I came back but maybe not fully". 

Whatever it is, I am thrilled by my (less than 24/7) engagement with OR, and super-happy to be included in Anand's OR experts list. You may form your own opinion on this question if you see that podcast (also available on Spotify). 


PS

Link to ORCID

Link to career blog








14/3/25

AM I A MARITIME ECONOMIST?





(HNP photo: the Piraeus container terminal)


This has been a question that I have struggled to answer recently. This blog is intended for those who consider themselves as maritime economists. If you do not, you may disregard it. 

The answer to this question is (depending on one's perspective):

a. YES

b. NO

c. MAYBE

A bit of rationale:

First of all, how is the field of "maritime economics" defined? The Stanford/Elsevier 2% global scientists databasewhich is based on the Science-Metrix journal classification system, has some 174 scientific "subfields", and "maritime economics" is not one of them (incidentally, "economics" and "agricultural economics" are).  So a scientist can not identify himself/herself as a maritime economist based on what is in the Stanford/Elsevier database. People who consider themselves as maritime economists (and there can be many) will have to settle for another subfield of the Stanford/Elsevier database as their primary subfield (for instance, logistics and transportation, economics, business and management, operations research, or other). Incidentally, this is not a matter of a direct, personal choice, as the database makes this determination for you automatically, based on the journals in which you publish. My own primary subfield is logistics and transportation. Obviously, there is an indirect, but very clear choice here, for it would be very unlikely for Stanford/Elsevier to assign me in the L&T category if the bulk of my papers were in (say) astronomy, neuroscience, or psychology.

To h@ll with this database, one may say. Who needs it? Is there another way to say if I am a maritime economist? 

Well, as far as education goes, I have a diploma in naval architecture and marine engineering (NTUA), a MSc in the same area (MIT), a MSc in shipping and shipbuilding management (MIT), and a PhD in ocean systems operations research (MIT). Do these degrees prove that I am a maritime economist? Not sure. 

Also I am a member (and also Council Member) of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME).  According to IAME, “maritime economics” shall include the study of economic, managerial and governance- related issues and effects appearing in a maritime context, including related to shipping markets, ports and the associated supply chains. Note however that  there may be scientists who may consider themselves as maritime economists but who are not IAME members (or may not have paid their dues). So IAME membership may be a clue on whether someone is a maritime economist, but not a perfect one.

How about teaching? Well, I have taught courses on maritime transport economics at MIT (together with the late Zenon Zannetos) and at NTUA (in fact 3 courses). Plus I have taught a variety of other maritime transport related courses at DTU and other places. Does this make me a maritime economist? Maybe yes, maybe no.

How about research? Here things get more complicated. Below is a list of the various research areas that I have dealt with in my official active academic career (1979-2023), as I compiled them about a year ago (in parentheses are number of journal papers, plus books, book chapters and refereed conference papers in each area- NUMBERS MAY NOT BE UP TO DATE):  

Vehicle routing etc (18)

Ocean acoustic detection (7)

Oil spills (32)

Ship automation, autonomous shipping (8)

Maritime safety and security (15)

Shortsea and coastal shipping (13)

Ports (14)

Green freight transportation and logistics (17)

Ship speed models and optimization (16)

Maritime emissions (73)

Other research (24) - these are diverse topics that do not fall under any of the above.

TOTAL: 237 (for more details see HERE

I have NOT put maritime economics in the list as a distinct research area, even though various papers in some of these areas might be considered to be under the maritime economics umbrella. 

Last but not least, I have been CEO of the port of Piraeus for some 5.5 years. Does this make me a maritime economist? I do not think so. 

So based on all of the above, in all honesty I can say that I really do not know if I am a maritime economist. Maybe I will wear that hat under some circumstances, maybe I will choose to wear other hats too, under other circumstances. Last year I and other NTUA fellow naval architects and marine engineers celebrated the 50 years jubilee from our NTUA graduation in 1974. 


Does it really matter much? I am not sure it does. 


PS And now, the punchline: stay tuned for a podcast of my professional career mainly from an operations research perspective. 

See HERE, released on 20 March 2025. 

PS2

More in the "Am I something" category: 

Am I a painter? See HERE
Am I a photographer? See HERE
Am I an operations researcher? See HERE
Am I a Scandinavian? See HERE
Am I a cook? See HERE



17/2/25

ΟΝ ΤΗΕ FWCI INDEX

 As if a zillion citation indices were not enough, I recently became aware of the so-called FWCI (from Field-Weighted Citation Impact) index, devised and maintained by Elsevier. See HERE for some information on this index. 

How did I learn about FCWI? (I admit I did not know anything about it). A colleague posted the following table on Facebook, which was reproduced from another colleague's post on LinkedIn (note that I have hibernated my LinkedIn account since about a year ago): 

(big apologies for the inconsistency in formatting)





The table lists the top 50, according to their FWCI index, academics in the field of "shipping and port management" (SPM). 

First of all, big congrats are due to all these people for making that list. I note that I am also included in it, in the No. 9 position, which is probably a surprise as I have only published very few port management papers. I have also published some papers that could, conceivably, fall under the general rubric of shipping management-  if one finds a way to explicitly define the field (more on this later). I also note that most of my own citations are in the vehicle routing area, with little or no connection to shipping and port management. 

Needless to say, there has been a big publicity splash on social media about this table, especially by people who are near the very top of the table. All of these people feel happy about their position in that table. 

As for me, I have some questions and comments about the table:

1. How was this table produced? I entered the FWCI site and I found no way to enter  "shipping and port management" as a filter or criterion or discipline, to see who is included in the area. A colleague who tried doing this by hand, produced another table. His question on how the table was produced went unanswered. 

2. A more basic question is, how is the SPM field defined? The Stanford/Elsevier global scientists database lists more than 160 scientific subfields (as they are known), and SPM is not one of them. Is a paper on ship weather routing an SPM paper? Probably. How about a paper on reducing maritime emissions, or a paper on finding the best risk control options to mitigate oil pollution? Or a paper on port regulatory policy? Or a paper in intermodal logistics? Here it is not so clear. So there is an identity problem to start with, and two different people may have different opinions on this subject. 

3. There is no direct mapping between SPM and any of the 160+ Stanford/Elsevier designated subfields. We can not say, for instance, that SPM is a subset of the "Logistics and Transportation" (LT) subfield, even though many researchers of the above SPM table have LT as their primary Stanford/Elsevier subfield. There may be other researchers who have other primary subfields in the Stanford/Elsevier database (for instance Operations Research, Economics, Business and Management, or other) and who may claim to be into SPM as well. 

4. But even if we find a way to explicitly define SPM, the next question is, who qualifies as an SPM researcher? One who has all of his/her papers into SPM? Some of his/her papers? Or at least one of his/her papers? And who will make that determination? The researcher himself/herself, or someone else? (and who?) The Stanford/Elsevier global scientists database makes this determination automatically, using an algorithm that looks at the overall publication picture and assigns to each scientist in the database exactly one primary field and exactly one primary subfield.  But there is nothing equivalent for SPM.

5. How would these results differ if instead of SPM we had "shipping and port economics", "shipping and port logistics",  "maritime and port economics and logistics", or something related? 

6. There is more. I can identify several other people who have published some SPM papers, and thus could be in the above table, but were, for some reason, omitted. These include (order is random) Shuaian Wang (FWCI= 2.1), Qiang Meng (FWCI= 1.94), Michael Bell (FWCI= 1.58), Jan Hoffmann (FWCI= 4.40), Christos Kontovas (FWCI= 3.63), and Thalis Zis (FWCI= 2.26). And this is a non-exhaustive list. If these people were included in the table, some other people would have to be removed. The omission of these people brings back question No. 1. 

6. I see that my own FWCI (and I suspect everybody else's) refers to the time interval 2013-2024. Is that reasonable? For me, in that time interval I had 84 out of a total of 180 Scopus-listed publications. Why are the rest of these publications not relevant? 

7. What does Elsevier itself say about FWCI? It clearly states that this is a paper-level index and NOT a researcher-level index.  For more on this see HEREIt also has this caveat: "Highly cited publications for entities with a small scholarly output may skew the FWCI. This metric should be used with care when assessing performance." This means that it should not be used to compare individual researchers with one another. 

8. See also HERE for an article by the University of Liverpool on the pitfalls of FWCI. According to it, and among other things, a list of recent Nobel prize laureates has a subpar FWCI ("We ran all Nobel Prize Winners between 2018 and 2020 (a total of 25). We found that 10 (or 40%) had 2015-2020 SciVal scores < 2)

Based on the above, and even though I am happy to be included in this table, I would be a bit cautious on using FWCI, either for SPM, or for other scientific disciplines, as a criterion for individual researcher performance. 

See HERE for several prior citations blogs. 

PS (ADDED ONE DAY LATER, 18.02.2025)

My blog above found its way into LinkedIn (via a colleague). I could not see the discussion since I am not on LinkedIn, but I received an email by another colleague, who is at the very top of the table,  in which he partially answered my question No. 1: He clarified that, among other things, those who compiled the table- whom he did not name- intended to list academics who are members of IAME (the International Association of Maritime Economists) and have FWCI>1. He also mentioned that the compilers of the table did not intend to use it to make comparisons among researchers. 

I am not sure if this clarification and caveat were also shared in public or were only just for me.  

I note however that some people under No. 6 are IAME members but were omitted from the table nonetheless (reason: unknown). I do not think this may be fair to them, in spite of FWCI being a dubious index. Conversely, it is not clear if all people in the table are IAME members. But surely some are, including the President of IAME and some IAME Council members (I am one of them). With all the deficiencies of FWCI, I am not sure their being listed in this table is fair to them either. 

Has IAME been consulted in compiling this table? I doubt it.

All in all, and in addition to all the deficiencies of FWCI as per above, I think it is fair to say that the information in the above table is not accurate and can be misleading, particularly so long as it continues being circulated in social media for the purpose of highlighting, comparing and benchmarking individual academic performance and impact.





6/1/25

THE SIMITIS BLOG

Costas Simitis, PM of Greece 1996-2004: 

The man who left a significant political legacy and put Greece in the Eurozone. He also played a critical role for the accession of Cyprus to the EU. 


For me personally, he was the man responsible for my 5 ½ year tenure as CEO of the port of Piraeus (1996-2002). This has been the non-academic part -but surely an important part- of my overall professional career*. 


He was not afraid to pick someone who had zero connections to the political establishment (including himself) and zero prior experience in running a port. 


I am grateful for the opportunity and for his support. May he rest in peace.





* More on Piraeus when I was there can be found HERE.



3/1/25

THE GEOMETRY BLOG

Among the numerous scientific topics that I have dealt with in my academic career (thus far), which one do I like the best? The answer may surprise you.

GEOMETRY!

I have NEVER published a paper on geometry. I have only taken courses in geometry in high school and during my early undergraduate studies.

Was I good at geometry? I can not claim that I was a superstar, however I was not stupid either. I owe this to some teachers and professors who were brilliant enough for me to get interested.

I can still remember the geometry question in the 1969 contest of the Hellenic Mathematical Society (HMS), which went as follows:

Let AB be a given arc on a known circle, which is less than half a circle, C any point on that arc and E a point on the linear  segment AC such that (AE) = (2/3)(BC). Prove that as C moves on arc AB, the locus of point E is a known line (curve). 

(Note: let me know if you want to know the solution)

I also remember the statement of the President of the HMS Aristides Pallas that young people should be more interested in mathematics than in the Beatles.

1969 was my last year in high school and later that year (after that contest) I was accepted (after exams that also involved geometry, among many others) at the National Technical University of  Athens (NTUA) for my undergraduate studies.

I got an award in the HMS contest (which also included a question in algebra and one in trigonometry), but not the top one. I do not remember the geometry problems of the NTUA exams, nor do I remember the algebra and trigonometry problems of the HMS contest.

The pic below is from the HMS 1969 award ceremony, including Aristides Pallas (second from left), other luminaries, and other award recipients. Can you spot me in it?


My NTUA studies (in naval architecture and marine engineering) included projective geometry and some non-Euclidean geometry topics. I have forgotten most of them. Courses in marine hydrostatics and ship design had some geometrical content.

Later at MIT, when I switched to operations research, I encountered problems in graph theory which also had some geometrical content. For instance, Euler’s Seven bridges of Koenigsberg problem and the Chinese Postman problem. Also the vehicle routing problems that I dealt with in my PhD thesis as well as afterwards had some geometry content. My most exciting project at MIT was a project to develop graphics software for mathematical optimization courses on campus. I liked graphics because I liked geometry.

I may also say that the fact that I like (and practice) painting MAY be connected to the fact that I like geometry.

Why do I like geometry?  

Because it is a no nonsense, no-bullshit (no-BS) discipline. There are no “ifs, ands, or buts” in geometry. There is nothing more scientifically rigorous (and, I would say, mentally exhilarating) than proving a geometric property, or theorem.

A very simple example of the beauty of geometry is the 9-point circle, also known as Euler’s circle, which is a circle that, for any given triangle, passes through (a) the midpoint of each edge of the triangle, (b) the foot of each of the altitudes, and (c) the midpoint of the line segment from each vertex of the triangle to the orthocenter (where the 3 altitudes meet), as shown in the figure below.


For the fascinating properties of the 9-point circle (there are many), and for many more in geometry, there are no ifs, ands, or buts. No one can challenge them with squishy, BS arguments. BS has zero value here.

Geometry is not the only no-BS discipline. Mathematics, physics, and many engineering disciplines also have this property. I only mentioned geometry because I like it very much.  

Unfortunately, “no-BS” is not the case with some other topics. I have encountered such topics in my academic career (thus far), and the question which one may be the worst is a tough one. Yet, I would venture my opinion, and it is the following one:

 

SCROLL DOWN

 

SCROLL DOWN

 

SCROLL DOWN

 

 

 

 

SCROLL DOWN

 

 

 

 

SCROLL DOWN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCROLL DOWN!!





AND THE ANSWER IS....





DECARBONIZE SHIPPING!

Decarbonization of shipping (read: maritime transport) involves efforts to reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions from ships all the way to “net zero”, as per policy decisions at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN agency tasked to regulate shipping. These emissions are currently around 3% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions and on the order of 1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year.

This happens to be the area, among many others, in which I (either alone or with several co-authors) have channeled most of my research energy over the last 15 or so years and published most of my recent papers and other publications, outcomes of funded and non-funded research. These publications are (depending on what counts) over 60. My co-authors and I did our very best to publish in good peer reviewed journals, and most of these are considered top journals. We also did our very best to make our methods and models transparent and make concrete and non-fuzzy recommendations, useful to industry and policy-makers alike. I actually invite anybody to read these papers and challenge the above statement, which may obviously entail some personal bias.

To be fair, shipping decarbonization is not a pure discipline like geometry. It involves an array of many interlinked topics, including various areas of engineering, various areas of economics, various areas of environmental sciences, and various areas of law and regulation. It also engages a rather wide and diverse set of stakeholders, who have multiple and many times conflicting interests. So there is no Euclid or Euler here, and there are few or no “no-BS” theorems.

The objective to decarbonize shipping is a laudable one. But it would seem self-evident that any plan to achieve that goal should be based on a combination of two basic prerequisites: 

(a) a strong political will and 

(b) sound and solid scientific results, that would allow policy makers to know where we stand and to rigorously evaluate alternatives and their impact before making policy decisions on where we should go.

Yet, and in spite of lots of discussions and good intent by some people, sadly we are a long way to securing prerequisites (a) and (b) above. By and large, the process is plagued by the following deficiencies (list below is only indicative, and order is random):

1.   GHG emissions estimates are purely based on modelling, but the intricate models that are used by the IMO are non-transparent and involve billions of assumptions, several of which are hidden and/or dubious.

2.  Much of the policy process is driven by studies that are also based on non-transparent models, which have undergone only superficial peer review, or no peer review whatsoever.

3.  Instant credibility is given by media (social or other) to many of the studies that are mentioned in #2.

4.  The decision making process is highly political with lack of consensus on key issues.

5.  Key responsibilities are placed on wrong stakeholders (for instance ship owners instead of shipbuilders or fuel producers).

6.   Decarbonization indices (such as EEDI, EEXI, AER, EEOI) are dubious and may actually increase GHG emissions. 

7.    Guiding principles at the IMO (CBDR, NMFT) are conflicting.

8.    Lack of consensus leads to deliberate fuzziness on key decisions.

9.  Many of those decisions, fuzzy as these may be, are based on the lowest common denominator.

10.  Lack of sound governance and transparency principles pervades the IMO policy making process.

11.  Regional measures (eg EU ETS) may create distortions, loopholes and risk of carbon leakage.


And then, it got suddenly much worse!

THE FINAL NAIL IN THE SHIPPING DECARBONIZATION COFFIN: The outcome of the 2024 US Presidential election.

Trump is a sworn denier of climate change. Under him it is inconceivable that the US will agree to any form of carbon pricing (or levy) to reduce GHG emissions, which is in my opinion, the only way forward. The US did not agree to it under the Biden administration either, even though they were surely more proactive than under Trump 2016-2020 (note: the US did not agree to the IMO 2018 Initial Strategy). China and a bunch of other countries do not agree to carbon pricing either. They never did, and are adamant against it. That makes the prospect of any sensible agreement by 2025, the year the IMO is supposed to agree on how to achieve net 0 by 2050,  all but impossible. 

The key word above is "sensible". Any agreement that does not include a substantial carbon levy is not, in my opinion, sensible. 



So here is how I think it looks, sadly (obviously I hope I am wrong): 



So for the time being, and as far as I am concerned, I prefer geometry.


PS (Dec. 2025) 

Was I a prophet? 

See HERE

 




28/10/24

AM I A PAINTER?


The purpose of this blog is to shed some light into my (amateur and less than illustrious) painting career. I will show you some paintings of mine. 

Note: the real paintings are much better, and what is shown here does not reveal the dimensions of the paintings.

THE EARLY DAYS

My painting career started when I was around 11 (1962), by copying, together with my father, the following Vincent Van Gogh painting:

THE COPY


 
THE ORIGINAL


Then we painted together this ship, named BREMEN. I do not have a pic of the original.


About a year later, when I was 12, I painted this ship alone (again, no pic of the original):


Then there was a painting of 4 Minoan fishermen that regrettably was lost (but see later). 

Then there was this Clipper painting, probably the Cutty Sark, which I recently fished out. Date is unknown, but it was done probably when I was in high school, mid 60s. I had it in my room in my parents' house in Athens, and it was packed for the last 15 years or so.




THE MIT DAYS

When I was a graduate student at MIT, and just before I took my Doctoral exams (1976, age 25), I started copying the Claude Monet painting, "le train dans la neige". 

But I did only 2/3 of the painting (the left hand side), and left the rest undone. I completed it 13 years later, when I had returned to Greece (1989, age 38).

COPY


ORIGINAL




THE NORDIC DAYS

There was a huge gap (31 years) between 1989 and 2020, when I resumed painting, in the middle of Covid. It was another Claude Monet painting, showing sunrise in the port of Le Havre. Age: 69. 

COPY

ORIGINAL


Then, in 2021 (age: 70), I experimented with a number of paintings, mostly NOT copies, but I drew whatever came to my mind, in a quasi-random fashion.







The pic above is a free-lance copy of the following photo, which I took in 1963, when I was 12. The silhouette that you see is my father. The setting: sunset off cape Sounion, onboard SS Limnos, going to Sifnos. I took the photo with a Kodak Brownie, and apparently it was so good that it was published in EIKONES, a magazine. Big discussion on Facebook: is my father looking at me, or at the sea? I do not know the answer. 



Then, here is some fish!


Painting a containership was a challenge. All lines parallel to the center-line of the ship converge to a point on the horizon. The name of the ship is SHANE.

Then we move into 2022, age 71. The one below is a random set of geometrical segments.



Then I decided to redo the Minoan fishermen that I did when I was a child and which were lost, this time three of them. They are three separate paintings.


The one below is kind of crazy,

The building in the one below is inspired by my house in Sifnos, however the colors and the background with the sea are different.


The one below is a liberal rendition of Kamares (Sifnos) from Agios Symeon.

The one below is inspired from Faros (Sifnos). This was done in 2023.


LAST BUT NOT LEAST!

The one below maybe is boring. The number of distinct colors is 17. This is, to date, my most recent painting, done in the fall of 2023.




















Where are these paintings? Except the train and the clipper, which are in Athens, all are in Sifnos*. All Nordic paintings are acrylic, everything else is oil.


*The number of paintings in the Sifnos house is about 90. Except for the above, the rest was done by my father, who was a better painter than me, and far more prolific. There are many more paintings by him, in other places.