6 ms·

> the sulphur emitted by the ships is simply re-routed from the exhaust and expelled into the water around the ships, which not only greatly increases the volum

> the sulphur emitted by the ships is simply re-routed from the exhaust and expelled into the water around the ships, which not only greatly increases the volume of pollutants being pumped into the sea, but also increases carbon dioxide emissions. This should be a crime

newguy1234 7y ago
Probably hard to do in international waters but the bigger countries could always just say that any vessel doing this is blacklisted from docking in their ports. Every ship operator would just retrofit their vessels if that were to occur.
- cies 7y ago
  Exactly. I was gonna say that by some international port blacklist we can easily punish them, and of force them to make a huuuuuge donation to a clean-up fund in order to have the ban lifted.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    No way the free market has an invisible hand. That have is gonna show up one day and consumers are just going to love it. Promise. Any day now. /s
- delfinom 7y ago
  The US and China have already defined rules to prevent it.
  - mperham 7y ago
    According to the article, they've added rules that the ships can't discharge within their national waters. So the ships will discharge right outside that line. Nothing is prevented, only delayed.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>This should be a crime I suspect that a desire to cater to people with "something drastic must be done" attitudes is how we wound up with half baked rules with seemingly obvious loopholes in the first place. As another commenters pointed out, there are standards for discharge water and these systems presumably meet them. If you think those standards are wrong then take them up with them. The ship owners are acting in rational self interest within the letter of the law here. It's hard to find fault with that.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  They are not acting in rational self interest with regard to the health of our planet, on which they too must live. I know — tragedy of the commons, etc, but it’s actually pretty easy for me to find fault with that.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  How does the fact that they're acting in rational self-interest make it "hard to find fault"? "Rational self-interest" isn't a defense for bad behavior.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    They were given two options within the law and they picked the cheap one. Expecting participants in a commoditized industry to voluntarily increase their overhead is naive at best. The issue here is with the people writing the rules.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      There's two points here. From a practical standpoint, clearly the way to fix this problem is to fix the rules, and educate the people who make them to minimize future occurrences. Expecting everyone to act for the good of society without zero material incentives or consequences is futile. I believe you're saying that, and I agree. But (by a reasonable understanding of "hard to find fault") you also appear to be saying that the people exploiting the loopholes in the faulty law are morally blameless, and that's nonsense. Humans are responsible for the consequences of their actions. It's naive to expect them to do the right thing, but that doesn't make them immune to criticism or judgment.
seph-reed 7y ago
Can we just start adding a piece to laws that says something like: "if you do something shifty to avoid this law, and we find out, it will be up to the court to decide if you were still breaking it" I really hate the notion that laws are far more about the word than the intent.
- aeternum 7y ago
  This shifts much of the power from the legislature to the court. 'Something shifty' can be very broad.
  - paulmd 7y ago
    Such standards exist. For example, consider the laws around "structuring" financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. You can get as creative as you want, it's all illegal, the crime is attempting to avoid the regulation and if you try it they will absolutely fuck your shit up. It is one of the most stringently enforced financial crimes and if you try it the feds will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Never, never attempt to structure financial transactions. One of the problems with legal discussions on this site is that we tend to apply programmer logic to legal problems like this and come up with loopholes. But ultimately the law is interpreted by humans. Judges deal with criminals who think they've found a clever loophole all day, every day.

newguy1234 7y ago

Probably hard to do in international waters but the bigger countries could always just say that any vessel doing this is blacklisted from docking in their ports. Every ship operator would just retrofit their vessels if that were to occur.

cies 7y ago
Exactly. I was gonna say that by some international port blacklist we can easily punish them, and of force them to make a huuuuuge donation to a clean-up fund in order to have the ban lifted.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  No way the free market has an invisible hand. That have is gonna show up one day and consumers are just going to love it. Promise. Any day now. /s
delfinom 7y ago
The US and China have already defined rules to prevent it.
- mperham 7y ago
  According to the article, they've added rules that the ships can't discharge within their national waters. So the ships will discharge right outside that line. Nothing is prevented, only delayed.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>This should be a crime I suspect that a desire to cater to people with "something drastic must be done" attitudes is how we wound up with half baked rules with seemingly obvious loopholes in the first place. As another commenters pointed out, there are standards for discharge water and these systems presumably meet them. If you think those standards are wrong then take them up with them. The ship owners are acting in rational self interest within the letter of the law here. It's hard to find fault with that.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
They are not acting in rational self interest with regard to the health of our planet, on which they too must live. I know — tragedy of the commons, etc, but it’s actually pretty easy for me to find fault with that.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
How does the fact that they're acting in rational self-interest make it "hard to find fault"? "Rational self-interest" isn't a defense for bad behavior.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  They were given two options within the law and they picked the cheap one. Expecting participants in a commoditized industry to voluntarily increase their overhead is naive at best. The issue here is with the people writing the rules.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    There's two points here. From a practical standpoint, clearly the way to fix this problem is to fix the rules, and educate the people who make them to minimize future occurrences. Expecting everyone to act for the good of society without zero material incentives or consequences is futile. I believe you're saying that, and I agree. But (by a reasonable understanding of "hard to find fault") you also appear to be saying that the people exploiting the loopholes in the faulty law are morally blameless, and that's nonsense. Humans are responsible for the consequences of their actions. It's naive to expect them to do the right thing, but that doesn't make them immune to criticism or judgment.

seph-reed 7y ago

Can we just start adding a piece to laws that says something like: "if you do something shifty to avoid this law, and we find out, it will be up to the court to decide if you were still breaking it" I really hate the notion that laws are far more about the word than the intent.

aeternum 7y ago
This shifts much of the power from the legislature to the court. 'Something shifty' can be very broad.
- paulmd 7y ago
  Such standards exist. For example, consider the laws around "structuring" financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. You can get as creative as you want, it's all illegal, the crime is attempting to avoid the regulation and if you try it they will absolutely fuck your shit up. It is one of the most stringently enforced financial crimes and if you try it the feds will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Never, never attempt to structure financial transactions. One of the problems with legal discussions on this site is that we tend to apply programmer logic to legal problems like this and come up with loopholes. But ultimately the law is interpreted by humans. Judges deal with criminals who think they've found a clever loophole all day, every day.