4 ms·

The headline is: > Green finance for dirty ships Regarding "oxides" it says: > By burning heavy fuel oil, just 15 of the biggest ships emit more oxides of ni

The headline is: > Green finance for dirty ships Regarding "oxides" it says: > By burning heavy fuel oil, just 15 of the biggest ships emit more oxides of nitrogen and sulphur—gases much worse for global warming than carbon dioxide—than all the world’s cars put together. The HN headline is definitely misleading, but I'm struggling to see what you find so objectionable about the article. That sentence, which you haven't even attempted to refute, is simple and specific, and merely sets the stage for an article about finance. The article certainly never claims that "shutting down 15 ships would not do more to address greenhouse oxide emissions than banning automobiles world-wide". It's only mention of oxides or automobiles is in the sentence above.

ajarmst 10y ago
Because they speciously choose to compare ship emissions to cars, which emit almost no oxides in the limited classes they select (because almost all their emissions are in the excluded category). This is an bald attempt to make the problem sound extreme. If they are compared to other sources of oxide emissions, it doesn't sound quite so bad. For example, for nitrous oxide, sewage accounts for fully a third as much as fossil fuels. Burning of biomass accounts for just as much. Agriculture emits SEVEN TIMES as much as fossil fuel combustion. Of course, I only chose Nitrous oxides, which allows me to make this bold statement about how terrible agriculture is. They are cherry-picking misleading data to advance a thesis. That's not acceptable.
- emn13 10y ago
  Ships are more like cars than they are like agriculture; so the comparison isn't insane. Especially since it demonstrates that cleaner combustion is possible even in tricker (smaller) circumstances. I'll go out on a limb and speculate that even fairly hefty price increases in shipping fuel (e.g. were bunker completely phased out) would barely budge end-consumer prices.
  - ajarmst 10y ago
    But, in this particular domain (non-carbon oxides) ships AREN'T like cars---that's the whole thesis of the story.
  - ajarmst 10y ago
    I don't have a problem with saying we really need to address pollution from bunker fuel. I have a problem with purposefully selecting misleading data to bolster your argument.
    - emn13 10y ago
      Then I don't understand what the problem is. Comparing ships (which most people aren't familiar with) to cars (which most people are) serves merely to give people a sense of what's possible. And that sense is reasonable; making engines as small as those in a car, and that need to run under such varied conditions is a much trickier task. A ship should be able to do at least as well. Now, there are other factors clearly too; such as carbon-dioxide emissions and costs. So some discrepencies are perhaps to be forgiven. But then, the article never implied nor suggested that exact parirty between ships and cars was necessary. Nor does it state or imply that ships are the primary source for sulfur and nitrogen oxide pollution. It implies that pollution isn't irrelevant and states that reduction thereof is an aim to set the stage for what it's actually about: how improvements to ships can be financed. Your complaints are unreasonable.

ajarmst 10y ago

Because they speciously choose to compare ship emissions to cars, which emit almost no oxides in the limited classes they select (because almost all their emissions are in the excluded category). This is an bald attempt to make the problem sound extreme. If they are compared to other sources of oxide emissions, it doesn't sound quite so bad. For example, for nitrous oxide, sewage accounts for fully a third as much as fossil fuels. Burning of biomass accounts for just as much. Agriculture emits SEVEN TIMES as much as fossil fuel combustion. Of course, I only chose Nitrous oxides, which allows me to make this bold statement about how terrible agriculture is. They are cherry-picking misleading data to advance a thesis. That's not acceptable.

emn13 10y ago
Ships are more like cars than they are like agriculture; so the comparison isn't insane. Especially since it demonstrates that cleaner combustion is possible even in tricker (smaller) circumstances. I'll go out on a limb and speculate that even fairly hefty price increases in shipping fuel (e.g. were bunker completely phased out) would barely budge end-consumer prices.
- ajarmst 10y ago
  But, in this particular domain (non-carbon oxides) ships AREN'T like cars---that's the whole thesis of the story.
- ajarmst 10y ago
  I don't have a problem with saying we really need to address pollution from bunker fuel. I have a problem with purposefully selecting misleading data to bolster your argument.
  - emn13 10y ago
    Then I don't understand what the problem is. Comparing ships (which most people aren't familiar with) to cars (which most people are) serves merely to give people a sense of what's possible. And that sense is reasonable; making engines as small as those in a car, and that need to run under such varied conditions is a much trickier task. A ship should be able to do at least as well. Now, there are other factors clearly too; such as carbon-dioxide emissions and costs. So some discrepencies are perhaps to be forgiven. But then, the article never implied nor suggested that exact parirty between ships and cars was necessary. Nor does it state or imply that ships are the primary source for sulfur and nitrogen oxide pollution. It implies that pollution isn't irrelevant and states that reduction thereof is an aim to set the stage for what it's actually about: how improvements to ships can be financed. Your complaints are unreasonable.