3 ms·

The top seven or so shipping ships produce more air pollution than all the worlds cars combined ... So one could say yes to your question, depending on what yo

by bmh_ca 9y ago

The top seven or so shipping ships produce more air pollution than all the worlds cars combined ... So one could say yes to your question, depending on what you call "major".

Retric 9y ago
That's a false statement. They produce a lot Air pollution of a very specific type because their fuel includes a lot of sulfur. In terms of total pollution ships are actually a small fraction. Further, releasing sulfur over the ocean does not impact human or animal heath significantly.
- bmh_ca 9y ago
  I take it you believe the Guardian is wrong / misleading / imprecise here? (as are a dozen or so more recent articles) - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... > One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds > Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
  - IneffablePigeon 9y ago
    It's imprecise in that it refers to pollution that is harmful to human health as if it is the only type of pollution. It says right at the bottom of the article that shipping as a whole is responsible for only 3.5 to 4 percent of climate change emissions. The shipping industry needs to get its act together too but it isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though.
    - bmh_ca 9y ago
      > The shipping industry ... isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though. Thanks, that certainly clarifies.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Worth also noting that it would be trivial for the ships to burn fuel with less sulphur in it. The big issue in getting international agreement to enforce the change. There's no technical hurdle or complicated logistical challenge such as is being overcome to swap all ICE passenger cars for EVs.
lern_too_spel 9y ago
That pollution happens over the ocean, where it has little effect on humans' health. As of 2016, heavily polluting ships are not allowed within 200 miles of the US.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Particulates/sulfur emissions from bunker fuel (burned by cargo ships) are not the same as CO2 emissions. It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. We can electrify land mobility while also moving ocean going vessels to ultra low sulfur diesel or compressed natural gas. All of the above are cost effective today.
- bmh_ca 9y ago
  > It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. That's something that should be taken up with the dozens of reputable newspapers from whom I have drawn that information (e.g. the Guardian, quoted above).

by bmh_ca 9y ago

The top seven or so shipping ships produce more air pollution than all the worlds cars combined ... So one could say yes to your question, depending on what you call "major".

Retric 9y ago

That's a false statement. They produce a lot Air pollution of a very specific type because their fuel includes a lot of sulfur. In terms of total pollution ships are actually a small fraction. Further, releasing sulfur over the ocean does not impact human or animal heath significantly.

bmh_ca 9y ago
I take it you believe the Guardian is wrong / misleading / imprecise here? (as are a dozen or so more recent articles) - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... > One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds > Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
- IneffablePigeon 9y ago
  It's imprecise in that it refers to pollution that is harmful to human health as if it is the only type of pollution. It says right at the bottom of the article that shipping as a whole is responsible for only 3.5 to 4 percent of climate change emissions. The shipping industry needs to get its act together too but it isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though.
  - bmh_ca 9y ago
    > The shipping industry ... isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though. Thanks, that certainly clarifies.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Worth also noting that it would be trivial for the ships to burn fuel with less sulphur in it. The big issue in getting international agreement to enforce the change. There's no technical hurdle or complicated logistical challenge such as is being overcome to swap all ICE passenger cars for EVs.

lern_too_spel 9y ago

That pollution happens over the ocean, where it has little effect on humans' health. As of 2016, heavily polluting ships are not allowed within 200 miles of the US.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Particulates/sulfur emissions from bunker fuel (burned by cargo ships) are not the same as CO2 emissions. It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. We can electrify land mobility while also moving ocean going vessels to ultra low sulfur diesel or compressed natural gas. All of the above are cost effective today.

bmh_ca 9y ago
> It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. That's something that should be taken up with the dozens of reputable newspapers from whom I have drawn that information (e.g. the Guardian, quoted above).