3 ms·
Not really a helpful or fair comparison. Global shipping emits more carbon dioxide than India, but that's literally apples to oranges. It might be easier for t
by _jgdh 7y ago
Not really a helpful or fair comparison. Global shipping emits more carbon dioxide than India, but that's literally apples to oranges.
It might be easier for the shipping industry to reduce it's emissions, or it might be easier for India. The benefit(s) of India polluting is spread across 1.3 billion people. The beneficiaries of polluting by the shipping industry is presumably the whole world, though the benefits are unevenly spread. It might be easier or more impactful for one to reduce while the other doesn't, but again, we can't know without more data.
A better comparison would be between shipping and air freight. Or make the case that we don't need to ship if we can produce locally instead. Maybe it could be supplemented by saying that if the cost of the externality (pollution) was borne by the producer of the products, then it would incentivize local production.
- keiferski 7y ago> Or make the case that we don't need to ship if we can produce locally instead. My impression was that this was the argument being made. Shipping emissions could be cut dramatically if more things were made close to their end destination.