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 peo

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.