3 ms·

There are a number of problems with this accusation. (1) The requirement is that the sulphur is not released into the air. This is the rule adopted by a standa

There are a number of problems with this accusation. (1) The requirement is that the sulphur is not released into the air. This is the rule adopted by a standards body. Why exactly is it cheating to dump it into the ocean instead? (2) It is unclear that this is a bad thing. The article only cited the danger of dumping the chemicals in a port, where concentrations could reach dangerous levels due to concentration. It is unclear that dumping in the open ocean would be bad (3) The final charge is that the scrubber increases CO2 output. It is unclear how one should get around this. Obviously, any process that requires more energy releases more CO2. There is no data given as to whether open loop or closed loop scrubbers generate more CO2. I'm guessing both generate some more CO2. The fact of the matter is that the regulation as stated requires more CO2 to be produced. The regulations mandate extra energy use, so the extra greenhouse gases produced are directly due to the regulations, not the companies behind this. In other words, the article is written as if to accuse the companies of breaking the law, but in reality, the companies are simply complying with the standards in a way the author does not like. Instead of calling for standards to be changed, the author is acting as if companies should magically know what to do. Standards bodies exist in order to create standards that companies can follow. They should be the ones implementing the rule change. Indeed, the article explicitly mentions that the IMF explicitly allows these kinds of scrubbers. Thus, using them is not even air quotes cheating. It's actually fully compliant. To the article's credit, they did point out that the standards body is indeed reviewing their rules, and should be able to figure something out in the coming months.

rini17 7y ago
No magic necessary here. Companies know very well that releasing sulphur and heavy metals into the environment, regardless if air or water, is harmful. It was scientifically proven that heavy metals tend to concentrate in the food chain. They could switch to refined (low sulfur) oil tomorrow, that is not a technical problem. But, as others explain, the ownership of shipping companies is structured to avoid any direct responsibility, so voluntary decision that goes against the inertia is hard, and regulation is difficult in international waters.
- tathougies 7y ago
  'Being bad to the environment' is not actually against the law, especially not in those terms. Perhaps you are confusing morality with law and trying to hold people liable for the former rather than the latter.
  - rini17 7y ago
    You on the other side, insinuate that asking companies to consider any moral obligations requires magic.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      No, asking companies to consider moral obligations under penalty of law is what I think is wrong. The law exists to codify morality. If this is a moral concern, it should be against the law. We cannot expect disparate entities around the world, staffed by people with disparate values, to all magically think like an Anglophone Hacker News-type. In order to make expectations clear, morality that requires this level of behavioral modification ought to be law. In this regard, it has been turned into law, and whatever authorities we have have decided that this behavior is not illegal. Thus we conclude that the international maritime commission, which purportedly represents the will of the democratic countries of which it consists, does not believe this is immoral.
      - Thorncorona 7y ago
        I'm reading your comment as "Companies ought to have no morals, except in cases where required by law, because there are no common morals" I'm going to take a couple assumption about your political stance and try to explain why I think this is false and also terrible policy. 1. You are libertarian, or lean extremely conservative. This is from your dislike of new laws in general => prior comment "Sure, all law is an exercise of authority, and hence authoritarianism. The commenter was merely calling out that... no matter how you dice it... a new law is always authoritarian, whether you acknowledge it or not." 2. You believe everything not strictly disallowed by the law should be allowed, and that unless the law says otherwise, it should be allowed. Libertus. Generally, laws exist to protect public and individual good. This is true for both the Western and Eastern hemispheres. For example, punishment for murder, penalties for illegal dumping of chemicals. Individual rights and societal living standards are protected by ensuring one does not infringe upon the rights of others. However, it does not say what is "Good" or "Bad". This is why in addition to learning about basic societal law, parents teach their kids morals and norms. Cheating is bad, it is rude to interrupt others when talking, hospitality, gratitude. However none of these are codified into law. This is also historically found in all civilizations [-1]. When people break these norms, they are penalized by society.However companies, which simply are groups of people, will discard these norms to pursue profit because there is no significant penalty for ignoring norms and morals, nor laws which are frequently lobbied against or weaseled out of [0]. We can and should require companies to consider moral obligations because there is no way to codify directives such as "don't ruin the planet." Laws are generally written from the actions from the past. Monsanto knew for decades the effects of DDT, but they didn't do anything because there was no law requiring them to act. But should Monsanto have took initiative to act? Eventually, laws are enacted to combat abuse, but in many cases, the damage is already done. [1-3] [-1] https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-the-world/ https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-... [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-envir... [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190426110601.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190426110601.h... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-cont... [3] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-study-says-oil-sands-toxins-are-leaching-into-groundwater-athabasca-river/article17016054/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-study-...

rini17 7y ago

No magic necessary here. Companies know very well that releasing sulphur and heavy metals into the environment, regardless if air or water, is harmful. It was scientifically proven that heavy metals tend to concentrate in the food chain. They could switch to refined (low sulfur) oil tomorrow, that is not a technical problem. But, as others explain, the ownership of shipping companies is structured to avoid any direct responsibility, so voluntary decision that goes against the inertia is hard, and regulation is difficult in international waters.

tathougies 7y ago
'Being bad to the environment' is not actually against the law, especially not in those terms. Perhaps you are confusing morality with law and trying to hold people liable for the former rather than the latter.
- rini17 7y ago
  You on the other side, insinuate that asking companies to consider any moral obligations requires magic.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    No, asking companies to consider moral obligations under penalty of law is what I think is wrong. The law exists to codify morality. If this is a moral concern, it should be against the law. We cannot expect disparate entities around the world, staffed by people with disparate values, to all magically think like an Anglophone Hacker News-type. In order to make expectations clear, morality that requires this level of behavioral modification ought to be law. In this regard, it has been turned into law, and whatever authorities we have have decided that this behavior is not illegal. Thus we conclude that the international maritime commission, which purportedly represents the will of the democratic countries of which it consists, does not believe this is immoral.
    - Thorncorona 7y ago
      I'm reading your comment as "Companies ought to have no morals, except in cases where required by law, because there are no common morals" I'm going to take a couple assumption about your political stance and try to explain why I think this is false and also terrible policy. 1. You are libertarian, or lean extremely conservative. This is from your dislike of new laws in general => prior comment "Sure, all law is an exercise of authority, and hence authoritarianism. The commenter was merely calling out that... no matter how you dice it... a new law is always authoritarian, whether you acknowledge it or not." 2. You believe everything not strictly disallowed by the law should be allowed, and that unless the law says otherwise, it should be allowed. Libertus. Generally, laws exist to protect public and individual good. This is true for both the Western and Eastern hemispheres. For example, punishment for murder, penalties for illegal dumping of chemicals. Individual rights and societal living standards are protected by ensuring one does not infringe upon the rights of others. However, it does not say what is "Good" or "Bad". This is why in addition to learning about basic societal law, parents teach their kids morals and norms. Cheating is bad, it is rude to interrupt others when talking, hospitality, gratitude. However none of these are codified into law. This is also historically found in all civilizations [-1]. When people break these norms, they are penalized by society.However companies, which simply are groups of people, will discard these norms to pursue profit because there is no significant penalty for ignoring norms and morals, nor laws which are frequently lobbied against or weaseled out of [0]. We can and should require companies to consider moral obligations because there is no way to codify directives such as "don't ruin the planet." Laws are generally written from the actions from the past. Monsanto knew for decades the effects of DDT, but they didn't do anything because there was no law requiring them to act. But should Monsanto have took initiative to act? Eventually, laws are enacted to combat abuse, but in many cases, the damage is already done. [1-3] [-1] https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-the-world/ https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-... [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-envir... [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190426110601.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190426110601.h... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-cont... [3] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-study-says-oil-sands-toxins-are-leaching-into-groundwater-athabasca-river/article17016054/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-study-...